Week in review – politics edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past week.

You Ought to Have a Look: Platform Planks on Energy and the Environment [link]

How Both Party Conventions Talked About Climate Change (Or Didn’t) [link]

Fact-checking Bill Clinton on Hillary’s big climate change accomplishment [link]

Democrats strike ‘all-of-the-above’ #energy policy from platform – [link]

Want to know about @timkaine’s climate & energy record ? [link] …

National Review:  How Trump folk talk [link]

Republican delegates split on climate change [link]

Four truths about the part of Trump [link]

“If you are stuck lower, you want volatility. Your downside is flat, your upside isn’t. Break the system.”  Why Trump voters are not “complete idiots” [link]

Lies politicians tell us [link]

Gallup: Trump Leads Clinton on Top-Ranking Economic Issues [link]

Moderation note:  Because of the large number of comments on the Politics/Presidential threads, I will be deleting any comments that have a stand alone link to a graphic or a video.  If you have a video a graphic that you think people would be interested in, please provide a 1-2 sentence description of the link, then precede the link on a separate line with a character, e.g.

‘x http://www.abc.com’


602 responses to “Week in review – politics edition

  1. Pingback: Week in review – politics edition – Enjeux énergies et environnement

  2. Scientists Trace Heat Wave To Massive Star At Center Of Solar System

    This changes everything!

  3. DREAMS & FEARS in the last paragraph of F. W. Aston’s 1922 Nobel Lecture:


  4. bedeverethewise

    From the fact checking Bill Clinton Article:
    “In detailing their much-scrutinized marriage and love story at the Democratic National Convention, former President Bill Clinton also took care to list his wife’s numerous legislative and foreign policy achievements.

    Among them: “She put climate change at the center of our foreign policy. She negotiated the first agreement ever — ever — where China and India officially committed to reduce their emissions.”

    While Bill Clinton’s claim is largely accurate, he’s offering a rosy spin on the Copenhagen Accord of 2009, which was at the time and continues to be widely panned.”

    In reality, India and China pretend they care about emissions and they continue to do whatever the hell they want to do.

    Come to think of it, that sounds like the kind of deal Hillary negotiated with Bill many years ago.

    • The transfer of billions of dollars from the productive to the government scientists of Western academia to fund endless filing cabinets full of global warming junk science since late 2009 is the true measure of political change-makers at work…

      • Wagathon

        “…academia to fund endless filing cabinets full of global warming junk science…”

        This statement reminds me of the endless number of mathematicians employed by the Vatican to solve the problem of calculating the orbital movement of the planets and sun to revolve around the earth. Almost there, just not quite. Copernicus and Galileo thought otherwise, and were correct.

      • That’s the travesty.

  5. bedeverethewise

    You Ought to Have a Look: Platform Planks on Energy and the Environment

    From the Democratic platform, “In the first 100 days of the next administration, the President will convene a summit of the world’s best engineers, climate scientists, policy experts, activists, and indigenous communities to chart a course to solve the climate crisis.”

    Obviously you need engineers and I suppose a few policy experts would be useful, but what would climate scientists, activists and indigenous communities have to offer, other than pissing off the engineers.

    Does world’s best mean people who agree with a predetermined outcome?

  6. bedeverethewise

    You Ought to Have a Look: Platform Planks on Energy and the Environment
    From the Republican side:

    -the development of all forms of energy that are marketable in a free economy without subsidies, including coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear power, and hydropower.
    -the cost-effective development of renewable energy sources — wind, solar, biomass, biofuel, geothermal, and tidal energy — by private capital.
    -lifting restrictions to allow responsible development of nuclear energy, including research into alternative processes like thorium nuclear energy.

    Sounds very reasonable and based in reality

  7. Everything’s Awesome, The God-King Proclaimed

    In the most recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, 73 percent of registered voters said the country is on the wrong track, while just 18 percent said it is headed in the right direction…..

    And yet, in spite of clear evidence that a majority of Americans believe the U.S. is headed in the wrong direction, the president exhorted the nation, “Thank you for this incredible journey — let’s keep it going.”

    Obama spoke as if broad areas of American life are better than ever, even if there remains work to be done. When Obama said, “My time in this office — it hasn’t fixed everything,” the millions of voters who believe the country is on the wrong track might have seen that as a significant understatement.

  8. Are You Better Off Than You Were 7 Years Ago?

    While patting himself on the back in his speech at the Democratic Convention, President Obama said that “by so many measures, our country is stronger and more prosperous than it was when we started.” Clearly, Obama needs a new ruler….

    [S]ome have done well, particularly investors. But the fact that so many are falling behind is nevertheless an testament to the abject failure of Obamanomics….

    How does Obama square these facts with his sunny outlook? He doesn’t. He just ignores them. But the public knows what’s going on.

  9. Three graphs from a left-wing blog that show the decline of the working, lower-middle and middle-middle classes in the United States. The decline began in 1980, and has been accelerating ever since. The bottom 90% in 2009-2012 actually lost part of its previous income share to the top 10%, something that hasn’t happened at any time since 1949.

    Distribution of Average Income Growth During Expansions

    Very high wage earners have continued to prosper since 1980, but lower and middle wage earners have seen their wages stagnate or even decline.

    Mortality of middle class, middle-aged whites has increased since 1990

  10. Would have loved to have been a fly on the wall when Hillary told Wasserman-Schultz that this darn email scandal had rendered her too large a liability and she must step down as head of the Dem National Committee.

    Debbie was probably thinking: “AYFKM??”

    DWS’s transgressions are microscopic compared to HC’s but she lacks the complete immunity accorded HC by the American news media.

    Change You Can Believe In!

  11. Thank you Judith for the policy revision

    • David Springer

      Thank you to those who finally complained especially ClimateReason. I brought those complaints to Dr Curry’s attention and as usual she acted upon them in a timely fashion. The blog clogging perp is in moderation.

  12. LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS: How ‘competitiveness’ became one of the great unquestioned virtues of contemporary culture

    Widening economic inequality is the academic topic du jour, but the trend of growing wealth and income disparity has been underway for several decades…. Will Davies writes that rather than speak in terms of generating more inequality, policy-makers have always favoured another term, which effectively comes to the same thing: competitiveness….

    What seems to be provoking the most outrage right now is not inequality as such, which has, after all, been rising in the UK (give or take Tony Blair’s second term) since 1979, but the sense that the economic game is now being rigged…..

    The bodies responsible for judging economic competition have lost all authority, which leaves the dream of ‘meritocracy’ or a ‘level playing field’ (crucial ideals within the neoliberal imaginary) in tatters. Politically speaking, this is as much a failure of legitimation as it is a problem of spiralling material inequality…..

    If we can put our outrage to one side for a second, this poses a couple of questions, for those interested in the sociology of legitimation. Firstly, how did mounting inequality succeed in proving culturally and politically attractive for as long as it did? And secondly, how and why has that model of justification now broken down?

    Two comments:

    1) The political establishment, both Republican and Democratic, doesn’t believe that the neoliberal “model of justification” has “now broken down.” They are going with the orthodoxies of the intellectual and scientific establishment, which ignores the great unwashed and instead does everything in its power to demonize it. This brings us an interesting question: Can the intellectual and scientific establishment heal itself, or must it collapse before it sees any need for reform?

    2) Davies speaks of how those in the field of economics — Friedrich Hayek and the Chicago School — worked to make competiveness the alpha and omega of human existence. But he omits the role that other scientific fields, such as evolutonary biology, played in this political project.

    Evolutionary biologists like George C. Williams and Richard Dawkins, with their zeal for individual-level selection theory and the notion that individuals are merely lumbering robots controlled by their selfish genes, are the modern day equivalents of earlier evolutionary theorists like Herbert Spencer (Social Darwinism) and Francis Galton (Eugenics).

    These theories [inclusive fitness and reciprocal altruism] convinced a generation of researchers that, except for sacrifice on behalf of kin, what appears to be altruism (personal sacrifice on behalf of others) is really just long-run material self-interest.

    Ironically, human biology has settled in the same place as economic theory…

    Richard Dawkins, for instance, struck a responsive chord among economists when, in The Selfish Gene, he confidently asserted “We are survival machines – robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes… This gene selfishness will usually give rise to selfishness in individual behavior.”

    — HERBERT GINTIS, SAMUEL BOWLES, ROBERT BOYD, and ERNST FEHR, Moral Sentiments and Material Interests: Origins, Evidence, and Consequences

  13. It looks like Trump is ahead of the power curve, or at least abreast of it, whereas Clinton Inc. is still attempting to defend a cycle that has run its course and is now nearing its end.

    First, the German MSM published a story of a new cache of hacked emails that reveal how NATO’s chief military commander, Philip Breedlove, conspired with others to inflame tensions between the West and Russia by fixing the “intelligence” around his political narrative. This is nothing short of a redux of the yellowcake uranium — the Iraqi “weapons of mass destruction” — hoax.

    DER SPIEGEL: Dangerous Propaganda: Network Close To NATO Military Leader Fueled Ukraine Conflict

    And now we have the French MSM publishing this story:

    Provoking Russia

    Are the leaders of European member states of NATO planning to follow the example of José Manuel Barroso, who became a lobbyist for Goldman Sachs after his term as president of the European Commission? Were they using the NATO summit to prepare for a career switch as consultants to General Dynamics or some other US arms manufacturer?

    • Reading the article, Obama was never persuaded by Breedlove, but interestingly the one who was was Inhofe, and that was based on false evidence. He found Obama very frustrating for not going to war with Russia. Clearly the other generals were giving more accurate advice.

      • Jim D,

        Did you miss this part of the Der Spiegel article?

        General Breedlove’s departure from his NATO post in May has done little to placate anyone in the German government. After all, the man Breedlove regarded as an obstacle, President Obama, is nearing the end of his second term. His possible successor, the Democrat Hillary Clinton, is considered a hardliner vis-a-vis Russia.

        What’s more: Nuland, a diplomat who shares many of the same views as Breedlove, could move into an even more important role after the November election — she’s considered a potential candidate for secretary of state.

      • Complete speculation – if this person thinks this, then that person thinks that, then if Hillary hires that person and also thinks that, then such and such will happen, and, bingo, Ukraine goes to war with Russia. Check.

      • Jim D,

        You may not believe that Clinton’s warmongering past is a good predictor of her behavior in the future, but other people do.

        And the issue is not what you belive, but what the German and French people believe. Hollande and Merkel have their own public that they have to answer to, just like the German and French MSM do.

        That’s why when Obama came out with his ‘Two Minute Hate’ against Russia at the NATO summit meeting on July 8-9, Hollande responded with: ““NATO has no role at all to be saying what Europe’s relations with Russia should be. For France, Russia is not an adversary, not a threat.”

        A 2015 Pew poll showed only 38% of Germans and 51% of French considered Russia to be a “major threat” to the countries it shares a border with.

        Only 19% of Germans favored supplying arms to Ukraine, with 77% opposed. In France, 40% favored supplying arms to Ukraine, with 59% opposed. Spain and Italy had similar results.

        The poll showed ebbing support for NATO in Germany and France. In Germany, those who hold a favorable view of NATO have fallen from 73% in 2009 to 55% in 2015. France also saw a decline, from 71% to 64%. Only 38% of Germans and 47% of French believe their countries should use military forcé to go to the aid of a NATO ally, with 58% and 53% opposed, respectively.


        There is clearly no appetite in either Germany or France for military conflict with Russia, nor do they share the commitment to NATO that Obama expressed in his remarks at the NATO summit a couple of weeks ago:

        BARACK OBAMA: In this challenging moment, I want to take this opportunity to state clearly what will never change. And that is the unwavering commitment of the United States to the security and defense of Europe, to our transatlantic relationship, to our commitment to our common defense. Throughout my time in office, one of my top foreign policy priorities has been to strengthen our alliances, especially with NATO. And as I reflect on the past eight years, both the progress and the challenges, I can say with confidence that we’ve delivered on that promise. The United States has increased our presence here in Europe. NATO is as strong, as nimble, and as ready as ever.

        But Obama is not the only person out of step with German and French public opinion. NATO Chief Jens Stoltenberg doesn’t see lack of public support for NATO expansionism into Russia’s zone of influence to be an obstacle either:

        SPIEGEL: Polls show that 60 percent of Germans don’t want to risk a war with Russia in order to defend other NATO partners like the Baltic States. Is public opinion in Germany a problem for NATO?

        Stoltenberg: People have different views in democracies. For me, as NATO secretary general, it is important that the alliance has shown that it makes decisions that can then be implemented.

        SPIEGEL: Independently of what the people think?

        Stoltenberg: In democracies, of course, you are dependent on the support of the citizens, because parliaments and governments need to be elected. But if you look at the past seven decades, we were always able to adapt to new challenges, and that is a product of democratic decision-making.


        Stoltenberg obviously has a great deal faith in the ‘engineers of consent.’ But there are limits to what the engineers of consent can achieve, as we saw during the Vietnam War. In spite of one of the most elaborate and deceitful propaganda campaigns ever unleashed upon a domestic population, the US public could not be persuaded to support the Vietnam War.

      • Yes, Russia is only a threat to its immediate neighbors, not Germany and France. I doubt if Americans see Russia as a threat to them either. If you take a NATO perspective involving treaties and commitments, you see it differently. Many Republicans didn’t like when Russians buzzed their ships and advocated shooting at them. Luckily Obama is not of their mind. Similar shooting was asked for with Iran when they took some sailors. If I was choosing the less trigger-happy party, it would be the Dems, just based on recent history and what Republican politicians have been saying regarding China, North Korea, Iran and Syria in particular. They used to support arming Ukraine against Russia too, but the Trump contingent managed, in an oddly specific move, to take that out of their platform, so they don’t talk about Russia any more if they know what’s good for them, but they used to just a few months ago.

  14. Another indication that Trump is ahead of or abreast of the power curve, whereas Clinton Inc. lives in a world where time stands still:

    French PM: ‘France needs new relationship with Islam’

    The PM…said in Friday he was in favour of a ban on foreign funding of mosques.

    He also wants Imams to be trained in France rather than abroad.

    The PM has warned in the past that Salafists were “winning the ideological and cultural battle” in France, home of Europe’s biggest Muslim population.

    And he has pledged to “massively” increase France’s security and defence budgets in the coming years, as the country grapples with a growing jihadist threat after two deadly attacks last year.

    “The Salafists must represent one percent of the Muslims in our country today, but their message — their messages on social networks — is the only one we end up hearing,” he said.

    France has long had an uneasy relationship with Islam, even before recent jihadist killings in Paris, Nice and Rouen.

    Successive governments have struggled to integrate North African immigrant communities into French life and many on the right simply see Islam as incompatible with French culture….

    French Sociologist and director of the Religious Observatory in France doubted Valls had any clear idea of what he meant by “new relationship” but that it was a mistake to suggest this was the source of terrorism.

  15. I watched a bit of Billery’s speech. She mentioned certain groups as if it would magically bind them to her. An example is coal miners. She mentioned them then a few minutes later pledged allegiance to the “science” of climate change. I bet the miners were mightily comforted.

    The speech sounded like a hundred other Dimowit speeches, empty hogwash.

  16. Oh boy, I thought Springer had some good ones.

  17. David Wojick

    The Dems are calling for a WWIII like mobilization to combat nasty climate change. I found this dynamite mobilization impact quote in Wikipedia:

    “Most families were allocated 3 US gallons of gasoline a week, which sharply curtailed driving for any purpose. Production of most durable goods, like cars, new housing, vacuum cleaners, and kitchen appliances, was banned until the war ended. Gasoline, meat, and clothing were tightly rationed. In industrial areas housing was in short supply as people doubled up and lived in cramped quarters. Prices and wages were controlled.”

    So what sacrifices are the Dems calling for? Do they have any concept of this?

    • Go long sugar.

    • Cheap easy transportation has always been the bane of socialist ideologues. It increases the competition in employment, retail sales, manufacture, etc.

      Always, they have looked for ways to control that competition, whether through raising the price of vehicles or fuel, opposing expenditures on transportation infrastructure, rationing, checkpoints, wage/price controls, etc.

      The socialist ideal is that people work for whom “society” tells them to, buy what “society” tells them to, from whom “society” tells them to, that businesses hire whoever “society” tells them to, make and sell whatever “society” tells them to, and so on.

      And they, of course, will represent “society”.

  18. Trump created a reddit entry and answered some questions. It is lead by Milo Yiannopoulos, a rare right-leaning gay. Interesting article on it,


    • Danny Thomas

      Re: Reddit

      “As such, the ground rules were a bit different than your average AMA. Moderators deleted comments from any Reddit account created in the past month, assuming they were created by troublemakers out to spam the Q&A. They also liberally deleted comment they deemed unhelpful. As one moderator put it, “We built the wall 10 ft taller, you might say.” That’s why the subreddit’s volunteer moderators posted this warning earlier in the day:”

      “The candidate ignored those last few questions but answered the first two, sort of”

      Yep. Just another day at the office.

      But there’s probably a problem with the reporting.

      • It’s their sub-reddit. They get to moderate as they please. Billary and the Dimowits can do the same and actually do much worse.

  19. If Americans elect Clinton they know what they are getting.
    If Americans elect Trump they don’t know what they are getting.
    In UK ‘we’ voted Brexit and ‘we’ still have no idea what ‘we’ are going to get, most likely not even in two years time.
    At least the Yanks have the advantage, they can vote Trump out

    • catweazle666

      “In UK ‘we’ voted Brexit and ‘we’ still have no idea what ‘we’ are going to get”

      Judging by the ever-increasing list of nations who wish to negotiate trade deals with us – which, intriguingly, includes Germany and Ireland – and the sudden influx of investment in some cases from organisations that originally held Remain positions, it strikes me that what we are going to get is something of a boom, certainly not the bust that the Remoaners were gleefully predicting.

      What the EU is going to get however, judging by the condition of major banks – especially Deutsche Bank and a number of Italian banks – and the now almost daily terrorist attacks increasingly blamed on Merkel’s policies, is not as rosy.

      Note also that the vote against the EU was motivated by extreme discontent with the entire political system in the UK, the EU was simply the most obvious target for that discontent. The Government – and especially Cameron and Osborne – seriously misjudged the current attitude of the electorate towards the political classes and their hangers-on, and paid for it dearly.

      It strikes me that very similar thought processes in the US electorate are likely to lead to a Trump victory.

      Interesting times…

      • Catweazle

        There are still many organisations trying to talk us down and the danger is that the consumeR will start to believe it and stop spending.

        I just hope they are not foolish enough to lower interest rates. It is difficult to see how that will stimulate business investment, all it wil do is stop people spending as those with savings, the pensioners, have no means to replenish their capital and will just draw in their horns further.

        Yes, the US is definitely following in the footsteps of Brexit with Trump. Clinton is even worse than our politicians so it will be interesting to see if the reaction to her continues to sour.


      • catweazle666

        climatereason: “I just hope they are not foolish enough to lower interest rates.”


        Carney threatened to do that, and then pulled back at the last moment when he realised the sky hadn’t fallen in.

        If anything, I suspect that in 6 months to a year – always supposing the Brexit negotiations are ongoing, if things continue as I think they might, he may even raise rates a quarter to half a point.

      • Hi Tony
        As non-Brexitier I am pleasantly surprised by and hugely encouraged by Mrs. May’s approach to the post-Brexit governance. The lady is far sharper than previously assumed.
        Only this afternoon I was discussing some aspects of the above with my daughter who tells me that her late brother (Martin Brasier, sadly
        killed in a car accident) was distinguished Oxford professor, she knew him well since she did one of her research projects in his department. She also tells me that if judged by her older sibling, it would be a grave error to underestimate Mrs. May’s ability.

      • Curious George

        Reminds me of Syria: “What a pity that both sides can’t lose.”

      • Curious George

        My comment is a reaction to Tonyb, not Vuk.

      • Vuk

        I am hugely excited by Brexit and am proud to be living in a sovereign independent country once more. Let’s hope the doom mongers cease their continual sniping and get behind the country

        . Instead of countries having to deal with eu bureaucrats trying to secure trade deals acceptable to 28 countries they will merely need to deal with the UK direct.

        It will take a few months for things to return to equilibrium so I hope the bank doesn’t do anything premature like dropping interest rates.


      • I wasn’t impressed by ‘remainers’ negativism, and even less excited by ‘brexitiers’ enthusiasm.
        On the trade negotiating point you make, as far as I can see it the Whitehall needs to build huge administration to do all these new deals. Apparently there only about 50 or so professional trade negotiators, all currently working for the EU and many may be retained by EU for both their skills and language ability, not to mention the over-generous EU pay. On the other hand there are up to 100 or more countries that the UK may have interest in negotiation separate deals.
        Sort of bureaucratic nightmare if you ask me, unless the UK just accepts the existing trade deals as already negotiated by the EU.
        p.s. my older daughter spent some time in Brussels working on the EU digital trading regulations, most of it designed and proposed by UK team, it is thought that at least that part of the EU legislation will be retained, else contracts for anything bought on line from amazon, ebay, Ryan air tickets, Esyjet apparently moving its legal entity out of UK, and what else from companies based in EU, may become legally un-enforceable in case of a dispute.

      • vukcevic,

        Spiro Agnew’s speech writers coined the perfect epithet for you: “nattering nabob of negativism.”

      • Mr. Stehle,
        Wasn’t he Richard Nixon’s right hand man? Wasn’t he allowed to plead guilty to a charge of undeclared income with the condition that he resigns vice presidency?
        He couldn’t have been a ‘nabob’ himself, since he was born far too late to profit from the East India Company’s cor-rupt trade deals.

      • vuk,

        Yep. Nixon reportedly quipped, “No assassin in his right mind would kill me, They know if they did that they would wind up with Agnew!”

    • “The most recent employment data showed more people working in Britain than ever before. Wages continue to grow faster than prices. The level of economic activity in the second quarter was faster than in the first three months of the year and better than expected.”


      • Lol.


        Unfortunately, these numbers relate to a world that no longer exists. The 14th consecutive quarter of economic growth looks like being the last for some time. Replace the backward-looking statistics with forward-looking surveys and a very different picture emerges. Post-Brexit, businesses are cautious about investing and hiring. A recession in the second half of 2016 looks sure. At the very least we face two and a half years of uncertainty.


        Gotta love your approach to signal and noise.

      • catweazle666

        “Unfortunately, these numbers relate to a world that no longer exists.”

        Quite so, Joshua.

        In the New World, the UK economy will massively surpass those figures.

        So suck THAT up, you sad little whiner.

      • Josh, I supplied the link so others could read for themselves. I take Brexit predictions with a grain of salt just like the Trump hit piece by Moodys that predicts a booming economy if Clinton is elected and a recession if Trump is elected. It’s pure hogwash.

      • Curious George

        “Replace the backward-looking statistics with forward-looking surveys.” The past is never certain; the future is certain. How beautiful is the world of model lovers.

      • catweazle666

        “Replace the backward-looking statistics with forward-looking surveys…”

        Those would be the ultra-pessimistic surveys that were used by Project Fear and have already proved to be entirely unjustified alarmist claptrap, right?

        You defeatists lost. We Brexiters won. Live with it and stop moaning.

      • ==> In the New World, the UK economy will massively surpass those figures. ==>

        Gotta love it. Another “skeptic” displays that ol’ respect for uncertainty.

      • jim2

        FTSE250 are almost entirely British based companies (as against the FTSE100 which are global) which have just had their best exports to the ROW (i.e. not EU) yet. Not to mention how global companies are still planning investing in the UK and failing to think about leaving …


      • jim2,

        Also, the EU project reminds me of climate science. The IMF is being critised because it’s “whole approach to the eurozone was characterised by “groupthink” and intellectual capture”


      • anng – as you no doubt know, Greece was in the financial news here in the US for many months. The situation in Greece hasn’t changed much, but no longer garners headlines.

        The best thing that could happen for Greece is to 1) acknowledge reality 2) leave the EU and 3) adopt the Drachma. Then negotiate a rather large haircut with creditors so they can truly start over. A cheap Drachma would help them rebuild the tourism industry and that could be the start of a recovery.

    • Trump will have trouble getting his policies through Congress, so it’ll be business as usual. Hillary will have no problems getting her agenda passed, so it’ll be less business than usual.

      • Will Janoschka

        Trump has successfully FAKED OUTthe RNC, the DNC, the Hillary, and the meeja! Why can he not fake out the ijiots in congress?

      • You may have heard that Paul Ryan is facing a stiff race back home. At some point the rest of the bone heads will either be sent home or snap to.

  20. “If you are stuck lower, you want volatility. Your downside is flat, your upside isn’t. Break the system.” Why Trump voters are not “complete idiots”

    A very interesting article, but Arnade still misses a very large point. He shows photo after photo of folks who were the yellow-dog Democrats for 100 years. Folks who have largely switched affiliation while wealth piles up in the DC suburbs even as every fabric, sock, and carpet mill closes for want of a reasonable trade and tax playing field. In “the middle”, perfectly good power plants are shuttered by administrative policies causing utility rates to “skyrocket” and federal debt grows to over $60,000 for every citizen, even as folks struggle to replace jobs that the elite intentionally moved to the other side of the world where pollution controls and worker protections are a joke. They see their tiny school district struggling with hundreds of children who can’t speak English, at typically twice the cost per student, while being told that they must spend $50 per hour for a math tutor because there is no manpower to help their child with Algebra. Different voters have different levels of understanding as to causes, but most have a far better feel for the effects of Washington policies than a Georgetown or Harvard graduate who is consumed with getting their three- year-old started on the perfect private school track.

    Arnade is either unaware or unwilling to admit that there are very many middle Americans who still have a nice lifestyle including a very nice home near excellent public schools and active churches. They have enough income to go to their alma mater’s football game. But even these folks see the handwriting on the wall. Federal policy after federal policy seems hell-bent to destroy wealth and jobs. When they work for a large corporation and their management is faced with the choice of investing $1.00 in India or 65 cents in the US, they know what is the duty owed to their investors. These folks know that the only way to improve this situation is to rationalize tax laws and they can see which party refuses to even consider this. When a woman builds a business selling better bags made of natural gas, and one party throws up straw arguments to drive her industry away, she can decide to fix that party or switch to another. If a driven and customer-focused salesman sees the Federal government taking his insurance business so that socialists may replace it with policies and pipe-dreams, then he wakes up and makes choices in the voting booth.

    Its hard to know if the Arnades of the world are this ignorant, or if they are intentionally misleading their readers… the end effect is the same. In either case their words actually repulse readers and drive them away.

  21. Here’s a quite thorough analysis of the presidential race in Pennsylvania.

    The fact that a traditionally blue state like Pennsylvania is even in play should give the Dems pause:

    Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump Eye Pennsylvania Prize

    Mr. Trump’s ability to connect with white working-class voters, roughly half of the state’s voting population, gives Republicans hope that they can carry the state this year. The Clinton campaign’s challenge is to make sure Mr. Trump doesn’t tally enough votes in white, rust-belt regions to overcome her significant advantage among educated suburbanites and minorities in and near Philadelphia and elsewhere.

    A recent visit to Westmoreland County, outside Pittsburgh, indicates her task won’t be easy.

  22. Spring slump: U.S. economy only grows 1.2%

    US economy ‘close to stagnant for almost a year’ as growth shudders

    GRAPH: 2015Q4, 2016Q1, and 2016Q2 GDP growth come in at 0.9%, 0.8%, and 1.2%, respectively

  23. Evidence that Canada has succumbed to the resource curse and fallen into a staples trap?

    Canada GDP Shrinks Most Since 2009 as Wildfires Crimp Oil Output


  24. From the article:

    Thousands to gather in towns and cities across Germany today at 3pm
    They are calling for her resignation over open door immigration policy
    Comes after four brutal attacks leaving nearly a dozen dead in one week
    Three of the attackers were among 1.1million who entered as refugees


  25. Clinton Campaign Warned In March By FBI About Hacking, Refused To Cooperate.

    “The FBI’s request to turn over internal computer logs and personal email information came at an awkward moment for the Clinton campaign, said the source, familiar with the campaign’s internal deliberations. At the time, the FBI was still actively and aggressively conducting a criminal investigation into whether Clinton had compromised national security secrets by sending classified emails through a private computer server in the basement of her home in Chappaqua, N.Y. There were already press reports, to date unconfirmed, that the investigation might have expanded to include dealings relating to the Clinton Foundation. Campaign officials had reason to fear that any production of campaign computer logs and personal email accounts could be used to further such a probe. At the Brooklyn meeting, FBI agents emphasized that the request for data was unrelated to the separate probe into Clinton’s email server. But after deliberating about the bureau’s request, and in light of the lack of details provided by the FBI and the absence of a subpoena, the Clinton campaign chose to turn down the bureau’s request, the source said.”

    The only reason we even know this horrible woman disregarded law and rules and installed a secret server is because of leaks, and it will take leaks to expose the corruption of her administration. The American media sure as heck isn’t going to expose anything.

    Respect for law and transparency are just unknown to HRC. If she’s elected President this sort of stuff is going to be even more prevalent than it has been for the last 25 years…..the only question is how much damage to the country/world can she do and how long will it take to be discovered.

  26. Danny Thomas

    So much wrong, so little time, and no reason which I can see that makes much sense. But it is Trump after all: http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/30/media/donald-trump-presidential-debates-schedule/#

    Debates have been set since Sept 2105, NFL says it didn’t send a letter, and Clinton didn’t have anything to do with it.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t there some sort of question about what triggered a embassy attack and how it was portrayed? After all, is there any reason at all for ANYONE to be honest? Or is Trump officially a politician making him no longer an outsider.


  27. > If you have a video a graphic that you think people would be interested in, please provide a 1-2 sentence description of the link, then precede the link on a separate line with a character, e.g. […]

    Good idea, Judy. Thanks.

    Instead of adding extraneous characters, using HTML code could simplify things too. For instance, here‘s Joe Heller’s bidirectional interpretation of our favorite electoral race.

  28. > If you have a video a graphic that you think people would be interested in, please provide a 1-2 sentence description of the link, then precede the link on a separate line with a character, e.g. […]

    Good idea, Judy. Thanks.

    Instead of adding extraneous characters, using HTML code could simplify things too. For instance, here‘s Joe Heller’s bidirectional interpretation of our favorite electoral race.

    While it’s more elegant, it’s easier to mess up the coding, as I did earlier.

    • David Springer

      Your mission, if you decide to accept it, is to convince people that clicking on the links you provide is worth their trouble. No more automatic, bandwidth-sucking display of those flashy graphics-laden twitter links you used to ruin past political threads.

      I’d wish you good luck but I wouldn’t mean it so I won’t. Enjoy your time in moderation and don’t say I didn’t warn you. This message will not self-destruct in 10 seconds.

      Vote Trump, the not extremely careless candidate.

      • > should you accept it

        Beware your wishes, Big Dave.

        I rather like watching The Jim & Glenn Show in black and white. What about you?

      • David Springer

        Thanks for the warning. I think I’ll take my chances that I’m right about you being an impotent cowardly little prick with zero power of persuasion. Just a bandwidth bully and now that I’ve taken that away you have nothing left. Take the hint and just leave. Become someone else’s problem.

      • > I think I’ll take my chances that I’m right […]

        About something else, Big Dave?

        No wonder the world conspires to fulfill your self-sealing hedging.

        See you next week.

      • catweazle666

        “I’m right about you being an impotent cowardly little prick…”

        I think you’re being a bit hard on impotent cowardly little pricks there, David.

        They have feelings too, you know.

  29. VIDEO: Russia Expert Stephen Cohen — Trump Wants To Stop The New Cold War, But The American Media Just Doesn’t Understand

    Stephen F. Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies at NYU and Princeton, spoke with CNN’s ‘Smerconish’ Saturday morning about Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, and the ‘New Cold War.’

    Cohen says the media at large is doing a huge disservice to the American people by ignoring the substance of Trump’s arguments about NATO and Russia, and buying the Clinton campaign’s simplistic smear that Trump is a Russian “Manchurian candidate.”

    “That reckless branding of Trump as a Russian agent, most of it is coming from the Clinton campaign,” Cohen said. “And they really need to stop.”

    Donald Trump… says “he wants to end the New Cold War, and cooperate with Russia in various places… and –astonishingly– the media is full of what only can be called neo-McCarthyite charges that he is a Russian agent, that he is a Manchurian candidate, and that he is Putin’s client.”

    “This is a moment when there should be, in a presidential year, a debate,” he said. “And that is not what we are given in the media today.”

  30. Whoa! Has the pretend and extend being perpetrated by the eurocrats finally reached its limit?

    VIDEO: Italian Bank Failures Could Disintegrate the EU

  31. Just wanted to apologize for all the Trump criticism.

    That all came before I realized how much he has sacrificed.

    Imagine, having to give up his favorite hairspray just because of a hoax about some stupid ozone layer!

    Oh, the humanity!

  32. David Springer

    Trump is the beneficiary of the Libertarian and Green party candidates. In RCP poll average, which seems to have become the gold standard,


    Clinton leads Trump by 1.1% in a head-to-head contest but in a 3-way or 4-way contest Trump pulls into the lead.


    This is new and I believe it’s a result of the Democratic national convention. In the recent past Trump lost ground in 3-way and 4-way contests. Bernie voters are leaving the Democratic tent. Hillary may have otherwise had a 5-point convention bounce like Trump enjoyed but in tossing Sanders supporters under the bus it was reduced to 3 points.

    I’m wondering what’s going to happen when the Trump campaign actually starts to spend some money. The Clinton campaign is spending like a drunken sailor and it’s barely managed to keep her even in the polls with Trump.

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

    • One thing I love about Trump is the fact he’s left a trail of political bodies in his wake without spending much money. This neuters the wealthy’s money to a large extent and transfers more power to the “little people.”

      • David Springer


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

        Vote Trump. The candidate who can win without spending much money doing it and who isn’t extremely careless.

  33. Could Turkey switch sides from NATO/Washington to Moscow?

    VIDEO: Strengthening Russo-Turkish Alliance Stokes US-Russian Cold War

    A possible new alliance between Russia and Turkey must be unsettling for the U.S. and for NATO. The presidents of Russia and Turkey have agreed to meet in St. Petersburg on August 9 to repair relations at a time when tensions between Turkey and NATO are increasing.

    What one commentator here is Mexico, who is originally from the Middle East, is reporting is that the military coup against Erdogan was a ‘regime change’ orchestrated by NATO and the United States, and that Russian intelligence caught wind of it and warned Erdogan, saving his life and his presidency. Erdogan is as a resultg currently conducting a purge of all pro-NATO, pro-Washington and pro-Europe factions from his government.


    Here’s one of the references Jalife cites from Arab media outlets:

    Erdogan Warned of Incoming Coup by Russian Alert

    Jalife says that NATO/Washington should immediatley remove the 90 nuclear bombs that it has in Turkey due to the instability of the situation.

    If what Jalife is reporting is true, then the Obama administration just fumbled the ball big time a mere five yards short of the other team’s goal line.

    Helmer, however, throws cold water on Jalife’s speculations, but holds out the possibility that things could take a very bad turn for Washington/NATO:

    [I]f it turns out that the newly revised policy of the Turkish state is not to threaten southwards, northwards, or westwards, then this has revolutionary implications…. I know that people in the United States and NATO like to think of Russia as an expansionist state. They like to think of NATO as a defensive system against Russian expansion. Russia thinks that NATO is expanding against Russia. So any move that Turkey makes that’s different from the way it’s behaved for the last 50 years is potentially revolutionary in character.

    • Another article that also portends very bad things to come for Washington/NATO’s relationship with Turkey:

      Erdogan Accuses US General of “Taking Side of Plotters”, Seeks Personal Control of Army; US Directly Implicated in Coup Plot?

      • Danny Thomas


        Now would be a really good time to get those invoices out. Terms, net 30? 1% discount if paid in full within 10?

      • Danny Thomas,

        I know you think that you’re being of great service to the Hillary Clinton campaign with your Neo-McCarthyism.

        But the tactics being used by Hillary and the Hillarymongers — blasting anyone as a traitor who dares question NATO or Obama’s brilliant mastery of foreign policy — could very well backfire.

        You might want to take a look at this interview with Glenn Greenwald:

        GLENN GREENWALD: But that doesn’t mean that as a journalist, or even just as a citizen, that I am willing to go along with any claim, no matter how fact-free, no matter how irrational, no matter how dangerous it could be, in order to bring Trump down….

        And what I also think is that, look at the Russia stuff: the history of linking your political opponents to Russia is a really dangerous and ugly one in the U.S.. That’s basically how, for a decade, the right demonized the left, but also liberals.

        This is the rhetoric that has been resurrected in order to demonize Trump,…

        [Q]uestioning NATO and the value and purpose of NATO with the fall of the Soviet Union is a totally legitimate policy debate to have. Whether NATO brings us into ill-advised conflicts such as Libya, and whether it has this ongoing value and whether the U.S. should be expending the resources it is expending on NATO when we have massive income inequality and our working class is being deprived in ways previously unimaginable, those are perfectly legitimate questions to ask. NATO is not a religion.


      • Danny Thomas



        Not sure why you’ve referenced Greenwald to me. Have I made any suggestion of a Russian influence? Others may have, but do you recall my doing so in order to “be of great service to the Hillary Clinton campaign with your “(my)” Neo-McCarthyism.” Think you may have me confused with another.

        Now w/r/t Trumps off handed commentary on NATO and ‘cutting off’ those who don’t ‘pay up’ I’ll refer you back to the suggestion that now might be a great time to send out those invoices. Especially Turkey’s. Don’t you agree? Cash flow is an important issue, correct? Earlier dating of invoices allows for an earlier collection process after all.

        Or, alternatively, you could choose to use your own mind (instead of that which has apparently installed for you) and evaluate that some of the contributions of our NATO associates has value (including proximity) which may not be being appropriately weighted.

        Or not.

        Leaving out the Trump references, Greenwald and I align well: “even just as a citizen, that I am willing to go along with any claim, no matter how fact-free, no matter how irrational, no matter how dangerous it could be”

        Might you be doing exactly what Greenwald councils as imprudent?

        Fact-free, irrational, and dangerous? (New Trump slogan for Springer?)

      • Danny Thomas said:

        Not sure why you’ve referenced Greenwald to me. Have I made any suggestion of a Russian influence?

        Duh! What do you believe all this NATO stuff is all about?

        In 1949, the prospect of further Communist expansion prompted the United States and 11 other Western nations to form the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The Soviet Union and its affiliated Communist nations in Eastern Europe founded a rival alliance, the Warsaw Pact, in 1955. The alignment of nearly every European nation into one of the two opposing camps formalized the political division of the European continent that had taken place since World War II (1939-45). This alignment provided the framework for the military standoff that continued throughout the Cold War (1945-91).


        Your stealth Hillarymongering is something to behold. Your talking points come straight from Clinton Campaign Central, and yet you claim you have no dog in this fight.

      • Danny Thomas


        First, ‘What do I believe all this NATO stuff is all about”. At the point in time where my question was posed ‘it’s all about’ the idea that Trump values NATO as a strictly financial proposition. That’s okay. Rookie mistake and one of many he’s made and will continue to make.

        As far as “Hillarymongering” is concerned I’ve read her site, and watched a bit of the DNC. I’ve also read Trump’s and watched some of the RNC. But maybe it’s not all that much of a challenge to see the weakness of Trump’s approach when a simpleton such as I can blow holes in it.

        Ya know, Glenn, if you were all that intelligent yourself you could figure out that a person can critique a candidate without that person having to be ‘mongering’ for that candidate’s opponent. How about showing some of that intelligence? I think you’re up to it.

      • °°°°°Danny Thomas said:

        At the point in time where my question was posed ‘it’s all about’ the idea that Trump values NATO as a strictly financial proposition. That’s okay. Rookie mistake and one of many he’s made and will continue to make.

        Trump’s viewing foreign policy through the lens of what is best for the US’s economic and strategic interest is what is known in foreign policy circles as realism.

        I am quite aware, however, that such mundane concerns are anathema to the stately and high-minded idealism of neocons like Hillary Clinton.

        °°°°°Danny Thomas said:

        But maybe it’s not all that much of a challenge to see the weakness of Trump’s approach when a simpleton such as I can blow holes in it.

        Like all neocons, you portray your version of truth as if it were self-evident and beyond dispute.

      • David Springer

        “Questioning NATO and the value and purpose of NATO with the fall of the Soviet Union is a totally legitimate policy debate to have.”

        BINGO! Give the man (Greenwald) a cigar!!!

        It’s not even close to the same world today that it was when NATO was formed in 1949 and the organization itself has changed from defensive to offensive posture since the cold war ended in 1991.

        Dig it. NATO was not involved in a single military engagement during the entire cold war. From 1949 to 1991. Beginning with its first major pro-active engagement in the Balkans in 1994 it has been aggressively involved in many disputes since then.

        One might remind oneself who was president of the US in 1994 that started to use NATO as an excuse for the US to flex its military muscle in Eastern Europe and the Middle East.

        I’ll give you three chances to say “William Jefferson Clinton” the first of the modern US intrusionist presidents. All of them since have enjoyed the power. Trump and only Trump wants to re-assess the role of NATO and its value to the citizens of the United States who largely supply the blood and treasure required for international military aggression.

      • David Springer

        NATO is funded by Marxist economics. Instead of paying the bills on a per capita basis it is funded by a fixed percentage of GDP. Succesful productive countries with high GDP pay more than unsuccessful.

        Straight from the mouth of Karl Marx: From those with the greatest ability to those with the greatest need.

        So nations who work less and produce less are getting a free ride from those that work more and produce more.

        Trump doesn’t like that arrangement and neither do I. The reasons are obvious. It’s patently unfair, potentially, unnecessary, an enabler for US military aggression, and in general a consumer of American blood and treasure for a very questionable ROIBT (Return On Invested Blood and Treasure; you heard it here first).

      • David Springer

        Danny writes: “a simpleton such as I can blow holes in it”

        A simpleton such as yourself doesn’t know his ass from a hole in the ground. You blow wind and nothing more. Let me return the favor by farting in your general direction.

    • Understanding and deterring Russia: U.S. policies and strategies

      Editor’s note: On February 10, Fiona Hill testified before the U.S. House of Representatives Armed Services Committee on Russia’s foreign policy and security challenges to the United States and its Western allies.

      • I couldn’t get that link to work. I think this one does:


        [T]he security response to the Russian challenge will have to encompass the arc of a long game.

        Strategic patience must accompany the judicious balance of elements of deterrence, defense, and constraint, along with clear incentives, and direct engagement with Putin and his inner circle. We need to understand the nature of Russian threat perceptions and Russia’s long-term perspectives. Managing the U.S.-Russia relationship will require a considerable attention inside and outside government, and close coordination with our allies on analysis and policies

        It sounds like Killary Klinton and Victoria Nuland are exatly what we need, so we can unilaterally go poke Putin in the eye. That sure worked out great for us in Ukraine. And for those who don’t believe it, just ask Killary’s newfound bosom buddies, Robert Kagan and Bill Kristol.

    • The Turkstream pipeline from Russia is again looking like the better option for Turkey since the failed dismantling of Syria. NATO wouldn’t like that.

      I wouldn’t be too surprised if there was neocon involvement in the Turkish coup. Hard to prove but it has that great hallmark of an Obama-Clinton era initiative: it destabilised, killed lots of people, made more refugees…and it failed.

      Bay of Figs?

      • I love this whole “obama/clinton neocon” nonsense.

        Do you guys even have any idea of who the neocons are and what they believe? No doubt, Obama and Clinton, like Trump, are more than willing to exploit pro-mitary sentiment for political expediency, but they hardly espouse the same ideology of a Cheney or Rumsfeld, and they share no political alliances to the PNAC or any prominant neocons.

        Scheece. You boyz are hilarious.

      • A necon is when you blow up or destabilise some part of the world for oil, gas, pipeline routes, sealanes, the arms industry, globalism and the Muslim Brotherhood. You need to fail horribly while letting nothing dim your confidence in the mission. Also, you probably think there are Russians under your bed.

        A perfect neocon partnership would not be Clinton-Soros or Cheyney-Bush-Rumsfeld or even Obama-Clinton. The perfect partnership is yet to come but is forming nicely now: Clinton-McCain. There you’ll get a couple of dumb brutes who really know how to lose and never give up. (John takes the trouble to personally know the head-loppers he arms. Such a nice touch, and Hillary’s not good with those bipeds called people.)

        With Clinton-McCain you’ll get the highest violence-to-failure ratio possible with Obama-level approval ratings from the luvvies and MSM. And, no, I didn’t mean to write Clinton-Kaine, though Tim does have promising MB ties.

        The problem with all-Repub neocon teams is that they can’t keep the media, academia and bien-pensants on side. Look at the aimless violence and geopolitical bungling under Bomber Barry. Think the likes of Jeb could get that degree of New Class support, even if he followed Barry and kept boots off the ground and drones in the air? (That’s another catch with all-Repub neocon teams: they tend to be boots-on-ground and thus they actually win very occasionally. What’s the use of winning when you’re a neocon, right?)

  34. Who Supports China in the South China Sea and Why.
    The psychology behind global support for China’s South China Sea position: a desire to avoid war.


    The South China Sea arbitration case has elicited almost unanimous public opposition in China. Besides this, it has been reported that 66 countries worldwide have endorsed China’s position on the South China Sea. Yet that figure also caused controversy, especially in the United States.

    According to our team’s research, we have found at least 70 countries supporting China’s position on various occasions….

    The figure, however, encountered doubts from American media and think tanks. The Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative argued that the real number was only ten. We personally also received emails expressing similar doubts.

    Considering such a huge gap in the count, our research team at the international studies department of Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies, Renmin University of China (RDCY), sought to verify on our own by conducting an independent count….

    Strikingly, we identified 70 countries that have expressed their support for China’s position, even more than reported by Chinese media….

    Further, the fact that most countries do not show a hardline stance toward either China or the United States illustrates their anxiety about conflicts. This psychological factor is the fundamental issue behind the rally of support….

    In recent years, conflicts and turbulence have risen across the world. Thus, there are great anxieties about social unrest and mass violence; there are also anxieties about the distrust between major powers, which may very likely result in a new Cold War or even hot wars if badly managed.

    • David Springer

      China certainly won’t start a war with the US over the South China Sea. It’s just bluster.

  35. The RNC of the past would have probably agreed to these idi0tic choice of nights for the debates. Those nights would limit the number of people seeing Billary get her @$$ kicked. Trump is too smart for that and will get a better deal.

    Republican nominee Donald Trump is alleging that the Democratic Party is attempting to schedule general election debates that conflict with “major NFL games.”

    During the primaries, Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Convention under former chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s watch were criticized for trying to schedule debates during other primetime television events to help shelter Clinton.


    • Danny Thomas

      Debate schedule was published Sept. 2015. This is all just whining.

      • The parties are not bound to do what the Commission on Presidential Debates says and, anyway, it is immaterial when the debates were scheduled. The CPD will have to negotiate with Trump. If they want a crumb from the table, they will have to do as he wishes.

      • Danny Thomas

        It’s been ‘alluded’ to that the dates were chosen to ‘hide’ Clinton. If it were me, I’d tell Trump dates are set, we’ll be there, see ya or not.

        How about them crumbs?

        What is it Glenn suggested? “What’s the problem?”

        Trump may think he’s in charge. If I were his opponent, I’d just smile and walk away. What’s Trump gonna do?

      • jim2,


        What’s the problem? Just change the dates and times so that they don’t compete with other important events. In this way the greatest number of people will be able to see the debates.

        Who would want to oppose that?

      • “If they want a crumb from the table, they will have to do as he wishes.”
        Just the sort of president one would wish for. Crumbs, please.

      • Danny Thomas said:

        If I were his opponent, I’d just smile and walk away. What’s Trump gonna do?

        Oh, wow. Now that’s a really tough one. How about:

        1) Ask Clinton why it is she doesn’t want to reschedule the debate so that the most people can see it without conflicting with other major events.

        2) Charge that Clinton is looking for any excuse not to debate, because she knows she will be anhillated in the debate.

        3) Charge Clinton with depriving the people of getting to see the two candidates debate, which has become quite an electoral tradition.

      • Danny Thomas

        You missed one. She could just shut up. I mean not say a word other than debates are set as agreed and distributed Sept. 2015. We plan to honor our word.

        Trump would likely blow a gasket after about a week of silence.

      • “Charge Clinton with depriving the people of getting to see the two candidates debate”
        Right. The schedule is not set by Ms Clinton, but by the Commission on Presidential Debates.

        The organization, which is a nonprofit corporation controlled by the Democratic and Republican parties, has run each of the presidential debates held since 1988. The Commission is headed by Frank Fahrenkopf, a former head of the Republican National Committee, and former White House press secretary Michael D. McCurry.

        The CPD said:

        “The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) started working more than 18 months ago to identify religious and federal holidays, baseball league playoff games, NFL games, and other events in order to select the best nights for the 2016 debates,” the commission said in a statement. “It is impossible to avoid all sporting events, and there have been nights on which debates and games occurred in most election cycles. A debate has never been rescheduled as a result.”

        Hilary’s campaign said:

        “This is just more Trump debate malarkey. We will be at the debates set by the bipartisan debate commission and expect he will too,” tweeted the chairman of Clinton’s campaign.

        It’s going to be hard to carry that charge.

      • Crumbs for “them,” beef for us :)

      • Nick Stokes,

        Regardless of what lame excuses the CDP puts forward, the facts remain the same: 1) the debate does conflict with an important sporting event, and 2) changing the date requires no great amount of effort.

        But hey, with friends like you and Danny around to help out Clinton, who needs enemies?

        All I can say is, keep up the good work.

      • Danny Thomas

        Come on. Please. Seriously. Is my pointing out the numerous feats of Trump ‘brilliance’ more on me or him? Is the messenger guilty?

        Trump is unplanned (apparently) and often off track. Easy pickin’s.

        To me, the question is why are you so heck bent on being his ‘defender’ when he does what he does.

        “Regardless of what lame excuses the CDP puts forward, the facts remain the same: 1) the debate does conflict with an important sporting event, and 2) changing the date requires no great amount of effort.”

        Glenn. There is such a thing as giving power to your opponent, an additional ‘fact’ which seems to be missing from your short list of them. Why in the world would Clinton (or anyone else) change especially if they’ve already a full calendar around the dates? I mean, after all the fix was in and it was a rigged nomination anyway so why wouldn’t they use that as a potential tactical advantage?

      • Danny Thomas,

        Like I said, keep up the good work.

      • Danny Thomas

        Will do. I just found this which I’d not thought of: “The general-election debate schedule was announced seven months before the NFL released its 2016 regular-season schedule.”

        This is a prezidentiyou’all debate we’re talking about. If Trump’s upset he should direct his issue at the NFL and have them change the schedule of the games.


        And surely The Donald wouldn’t want bureaucratic nonsense to cause the costs to increase, would he?

        “The debates are set a year out to accommodate logistics for fundraising and for the host university, according to the Annenberg Working Group on Presidential Campaign Debate Reform, a bipartisan working group formed after the 2012 presidential election.”

        (same article).

        This is not work.

      • Danny Thomas,

        Your arguments are so factually and logically sound that I’m sure everyone in the Clinton echo chamber is bound to agreee.

        Like I said, keep up the good work.

      • David Springer

        Danny, you ignorant slut. NFL games are ALWAYS on Sundays and Monday. The only thing that was revealed in the schedule you menation is who was playing where. Dumbass.

      • Danny Thomas


        Let’s think about this. There are College games on Saturdays, High School on Fridays’, Pro on Sunday/Monday/Thursday. Then there is baseball.

        That leaves …………..IT DOESN’T MATTER!

        Unless sports is more important that the presidency.

      • David Springer


        “Additionally, one Sunday night game is played every week at 8:30 PM (ET). One Monday night game then starts at 8:30 PM (ET) every week with the exception of the first week of the regular season, in which two Monday night games are played back-to-back.”

        You’re a stupid phuck, Danny, and I’m getting tired of cleaning up after you.

      • David Springer

        You’re a gullible phuck, Nick. There is a regular NFL game every Sunday and Monday at 8:30pm the entire regular season *every* year. Always.

        If the committee was trying avoid sports events why in God’s name were two of them scheduled during regularly scheduled football games?

        Am I expecting too much that you arm yourself with some easily discovered facts before you form an opinion? It seems to be a habit with you that you don’t whether it’s climate science or anything else. You shoot from the hip and you’re such a terrible shot you couldn’t hit the broad side of barn from the inside.

      • David Springer

        Trump wins whether the debates are rescheduled or not.

        Fact: There is an NFL game every Sunday and Monday evening at 8:30pm all season every year. It’s a tradition.

        Fact: The committee scheduled two debates known to conflict with Sunday and Monday night football.

        Fact: Trump wants the debates rescheduled so a wider audience can watch them.

        If the debates are rescheduled he wins by rightly claiming it was at his urging that the times were switched.

        If the debates are not rescheduled he wins by rightly claiming that “the establishment” on both sides wants to reduce the number of viewers of the debates.

        I couldn’t have done this one any better myself. Perfect. The establishment just lost again to Trump. Now they’re stuck between how they want to look bad. I believe they’ll look worse by refusing to reschedule the debates which makes them look evil instead of just stupid.

      • “There is a regular NFL game every Sunday and Monday at 8:30pm the entire regular season “
        The debate schedule, prepared by the joint Rebublican/Democratic committee, has been public since last September. People use it for planning. So why, just eight weeks before the first debate, does Trump suddenly find it is a problem.

        Cold feet?

      • David Springer

        How is cold feet explanatory for wanting a time when more viewers will tune in to the debate, Nick? Does not compute.

        Trump has placed himself in a position where he cannot lose. He owns the moral high ground (wanting more debate viewers) and if he gets his way he raises his own reputation and if he doesn’t get his way he lowers that of his opponents.

        Why now? Timing is everything. This is the right time to make an issue of it. I’d guess maybe he didn’t critically examine the debate schedule until now but he’s too shrewd for that to be likely.

        If you played chess Nick you’d lose to a precocious pre-schooler that’s how poor is your ability to think ahead.

      • David Springer

        “Just eight weeks before the first debate”

        Let’s word that differently. Almost immediately after the candidates have been chosen.

        Was he in a position to argue about the debate schedule before it was official who would be debating?

        Think, McFly.

      • David

        I do not know the ins and outs of this.

        ‘Was he in a position to argue about the debate schedule before it was official who would be debating?’

        It would surely be highly presumptuous of any candidate to question the timing of the debates before they were even chosen? That would surely play very badly in the MSM, especially amongst those out to get any individual candidate?

        That subject has not been playing at all over here. Headline news is the alleged insulting of that Muslim man and his wife whose son was killed.


      • David Springer

        1992 presidential debates. Three of them. Sunday 10/11, Thursday 10/15, Monday 10/19

        1996 presidential debates. Two of them. Sunday 10/6, Wednesday 10/16

        2000 presidential debates. Three of them. Tuesday 10/3, Wednesday 10/11, Tuesday 10/17

        2004 presidential debates. Three of them. Thursday 9/30, Friday 10/8, Wednesday 10/13.

        2008 presidential debates. Three of them. Friday 9/26, Thursday 10/2, Wednesday 10/15.

        2012 presidential debates. Four of them. Wednesday 10/3, Thursday 10/11, Tuesday 10/16, Monday 10/22.

        So only one presidential debate this century was held on an NFL game night.

        Interestingly in the 1990’s 3 of 5 total debates were held on NFL game nights. Even more interesting Bill Clinton was the DemocRAT candidate in those 1990 debates.

        This year’s duplication of 1992 with 2 of 3 debates on an NFL game nights has Bill Clinton written all the phuck over it.


        Thanks for playing. Better luck next time.

      • David Springer

        The nefarious bit of this is who exactly would choose to watch an NFL game instead of a presidential debate?

        Answer is of course is blue collar white men would rather watch a football game than a Clinton getting their ass handed to them in a debate.

        This has Bill Clinton written all over it. It’s part of the rigging. Subtle maybe but not subtle enough. Trump saw through it, maybe instinctively, and now I proved it beyond a reasonable doubt.

        Damn I’m good.

      • “It would surely be highly presumptuous of any candidate to question the timing of the debates before they were even chosen?”
        Why? Trump is allowed to plan a convention on the basis that he won the votes. And if it’s a real problem, it doesn’t matter who his opponent is. He doesn’t even have to complain to the commission. His own party is the joint organiser.

      • With Trump and his toadies, is there ever an end to the culture of self-victimhood?

        What’s hilarious is that the toadies simultaneously whine about insignificant matters as if they’re important and then boast about Trump’s “brilliance” in attracting attention by whining about insignificant matters as if they’re important.

    • David Springer

      This plays right into Trump’s narrative. It’s a win-win situation for him.

      Dig it.

      He owns the moral high ground asking that debates be scheduled when the largest number of Americans are free to watch. Who can argue that a debate should be scheduled on a night when the fewest people will tune in to it?

      If his request is denied then he wins by portraying the other side as wanting to keep the public in the dark as much as possible.

      If his request is accepted he wins by taking credit for getting the debates in front of more people so they can be more informed about their choices.

      This is a briliant move. Trump is a master at the art of negotiation and making himself look good.

      I did the same many times in my brief career as an elected official. A good example is I wanted to relocate city hall to a much less expensive location. Basically to a modular office building on property owned by our fire department. Cost would be reduced over 50%. Other council members, the mayor, and the city secretary didn’t want to be parking their expensive cars in front of or working in a modular building (a trailer in other words). I was being blocked at every turn and stood little chance of getting it done.

      So I took it public through our city’s social network (some 60% of the city are members). I put out a poll. Move or stay, and outlined the costs. The public was overwhelmingly behind me. Who doesn’t want to see gov’t reduce unnecessary spending except the government and benefactors of the spending.

      Well as it turns out the person leasing us the expensive building on the lake shore didn’t want to lose her tenant and she is a member of that same social network and personal friends with several council and mayor. The building had gone unoccupied for a year before the city leased it. So one of other council members opposed to moving (a local real estate agent) renegotiated the lease with the owner, who was also a client of the councilwoman/agent, and got it reduced by 25%.

      When that came before us in the next council meeting I said “I can live with a 25% reduction in rent instead of moving and supported signing a new lease”. Sold. We’re not moving.

      One of the other council members looked at me, visibly upset, and said “You’re going to take credit for getting the rent reduced! You win in the eyes of the public either way!” and I replied “You bet I am. Should I apologize for setting up a win no matter what happened?” She didn’t reply and I just sat there with smuggest look on my face I could muster.

  36. David Springer

    Kazir Kahn, father of fallen American soldier Captain Humayun Khan, is in the news cycle castigating Trump.

    His son died in the Iraq war in 2004. With all due respect I’d like someone to ask Mr. Kahn what he thinks Donald Trump had to do with his son’s death? Mr. Trump opposed the Iraq war. If Donald Trump had been elected president in 2000 instead of George Bush his son would not have been sent to Iraq.

    Mr. Kahn, understandably looking for someone to blame, is barking up the wrong tree. Hillary Clinton voted for the war in Iraq. Mr. Kahn is supporting someone complicit in his son’s death. What’s up with that? I don’t understand his motivation. Is he retarded?

    Hard to believe, isn’t it?

    • I believe without proof there are some good Muslims. But as Trump says, we should keep them out until we can sort the good from the bad. Looking at Europe, it is easy to see it is much better to keep the camel’s nose out of the tent in the first place.

      • David Springer

        Beside the point. If Trump had been president, Kazir’s son, Captain Kahn would still be alive. Mr Kahn is supporting a person who, as a US Senator, voted to send his son to war and get him killed. She is complicity. Trump, on the other hand, opposed the Iraq War from the word go. He’s castigating the wrong person. Is he retarded or just more concerned about the interests of Muslims than about the life of his son? He didn’t appear retarded so he’s basically trading on his son’s death to advance the cause of US Muslims. It’s pretty sick if you ask me and his son is probably spinning in his grave. By a 2:1 margin active duty US military support Donald Trump and veterans overwhelmingly support Trump as well. He’s doing a terrible disservice to his son’s sacrifice.

      • ” He’s castigating the wrong person.”
        His son died fighting for his country in that war. He’s not saying that the sacrifice wasn’t justified. He’s saying that Trump devalues it, because his son was Muslim.

      • Nick, Trump didn’t say any such thing.

      • I’m describing what Khan said.

      • Trump didn’t say he devalues the death of his son. I mean really, make stuff up much?

      • “I mean really, make stuff up much?”
        Well, here’s what Republican leaders had to say:

        “Captain Khan was an American hero, and like all Americans, I’m grateful for the sacrifices that selfless young men like Capt. Khan and their families have made in the war on terror,” McConnell said in a statement Sunday. “All Americans should value the patriotic service of the patriots who volunteer to selflessly defend us in the armed services.”

        “Many Muslim Americans have served valiantly in our military, and made the ultimate sacrifice,” Ryan said Sunday afternoon. “Captain Khan was one such brave example. His sacrifice — and that of Khizr and Ghazala Khan —should always be honored. Period.”

        “Period?”. I wonder who they were thinking of?

      • I’m not a mind reader and was expecting a quote from Trump since he was the subject of your abuse.

      • “His son died fighting for his country in that war. He’s not saying that the sacrifice wasn’t justified. He’s saying that Trump devalues it, because his son was Muslim.”

        the opinion of a grieving father. He also said later that terrorism isn’t caused by Islam. The issue is radicalized Islamist running amok and how to stop them so Clinton gets grieving parents of a Muslim war hero to build on her strawman about how Islam is the religion of peace and how we need diversity. With the 60 or so versions of the Koran and thousands of Hadiths.and at least a couple of fake Mahdi so far, there is no Islam anymore than there is A Christianity. However, there are plenty with faith in whatever their interpretation might be that can be paraded out when needed. Perhaps Khan has an opinion on gay rights and gender identity?

      • I want a copy of the Constitution that Mr Kahn carries around. The one I have doesn’t say anything about it being unconstitutional to protect our borders or oppose a group of people who wish to install sharia.

      • ==> there is no Islam ==>

        An argument that is antithetical to Trump’s.

      • David Springer

        Nick, what exactly leads you to believe Trump devalued Captain Kahn’s death?

        Do you have any comment on why Kazir is speaking against the POTUS candidate who wanted to stay out of Iraq and is supporting the candidate who as a US Senator voted FOR the war where his son was killed?

        Does that make sense to you somehow?

        Here’s some stats for you to think about:

        Number of Muslim Americans: 2.75 million
        Number of Muslims on active duty: 6000
        Percentage of Muslims in military: 0.2%

        Number of Hispanic Americans: 55 million
        Number of Hispanics on active duty: 157,000
        Percentage of Hispanics in military: 0.2%

        Number of African Americans: 39 million
        Number of Blacks on active duty: 257,000
        Percentage of Blacks in military: 0.6%

        Number of White Americans: 223,000,000
        Number of Whites on active duty: 1,071,000
        Percentage of Whites in military: 0.4%

        Draw your own conclusions about which demographic(s) are more or less willing to put their lives on the line for our country.

        Just sayin’

      • Joshua said:

        ==> there is no Islam ==>

        An argument that is antithetical to Trump’s.

        Three questions:

        1) Has Trump homogenized all Muslims by painting them all with the same tar brush?

        2) Or, has Trump merely argued that we should apply the precautionary principle when it comes to Muslim immigration?

        3) If one agrees that #2 is the case, and still remains opposed to Trump’s position, then why is it OK to apply the precautionary principle when it comes to the threat of CAGW, but not OK to apply the precautionary principle when it comes to the threat of terrorism?

      • “An argument that is antithetical to Trump’s.”

        read harder

      • Glenn –

        ==> 1) Has Trump homogenized all Muslims by painting them all with the same tar brush? ==>

        In the fashion of a demagogue, absolutely. Hence the distinction between his approach on the issue and that of someone like Bush. Hence the widespread criticism if his approach from experts in the anti-terrorism community.

        ==> 2) Or, has Trump merely argued that we should apply the precautionary principle when it comes to Muslim immigration?

        Lol. I love the rhetorical device.

        No, he has not “merely argued” any such thing. He has exploited terrorism and fear-mongwred for political advantage, just as does Clinton when she red-baits about Russia. What’s fascinating to me is your double standard on these issues. Why the toadyism? Why hold Trump to a different standard than you would any other politician? Why ignore his militarism?

      • Joshua,

        If you were not so deeply walled off inside the Clinton echo chamber, you might be able to perceive the reality of the situation.

        With Clinton, given her long track record, she is undoubtedly a quintessential neocon.

        Trump, on the other hand, is more of a wild card. He has no track record that can be judged, and to make things even more uncertain he says a lot of contradictory things.

        With Trump there is some hope of the US breaking its post-1989 tradition of permanent war. With Clinton there is none.

        The fact that the establishment — both Republican and Democratic — refuses to back Trump speaks volumes. The fear of the establishment is that Trump will break from the status quo, and not just spout empty platitues about “Change you can believe in.”

      • Glenn –

        Error in thinking in your part. I am far from being “inside the Clinton echo chamber” (for example, I’m here aren’t I?j, just because I laugh at Trump and the absurd rationalizations if his toadies.

        She’s a craven politician just like Trump, but hardly shares ideology with the neocons. She is, in fact, political enemies with neocons. Your branding everyone who disagree with you about Trump as neocons and “elites” is just intellectually lazy. Make real arguments, not cartoonish ones. Your cartoons look like nothing other than Trump sycophantry.

    • Danny Thomas

      It’s comments like this: ” Mr. Trump opposed the Iraq war.”

      which are indeed :” Hard to believe, isn’t it?”

      • David Springer

        It’s difficult to find anything public because he tried to avoid offending politicians who he might need on his side for business reasons. But by 2004 he was outspoken about it:


        My life is seeing everything in terms of “How would I handle that?” Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we’re in. I would never have handled it that way. Does anybody really believe that Iraq is going to be a wonderful democracy where people are going to run down to the voting box and gently put in their ballot and the winner is happily going to step up to lead the county? C’mon. Two minutes after we leave, there’s going to be a revolution, and the meanest, toughest, smartest, most vicious guy will take over. And he’ll have weapons of mass destruction, which Saddam didn’t have.

        What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who’ve been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing!

        Maybe you should start doing your own homework instead of having me do it for you? The former builds character and the latter just reinforces your sloth and incompetence.

      • Danny Thomas


        Read more and ‘incomptence’ less.

        How about actual real live investigative journalist who looked at the question as opposed to an amateur like you: http://www.factcheck.org/2016/02/donald-trump-and-the-iraq-war/

        Complete time line and list of sources is included.

        He was for it, against it, and at times had financial interests in play due to it.

        But it’s probably a problem with the reporting. That’s where I’d take it if I was you and debating this from such a weak and inaccurate position.

      • David Springer

        It’s difficult to find anything public because he tried to avoid offending politicians who he might need on his side for business reasons. But by 2004 he was outspoken about it:


        My life is seeing everything in terms of “How would I handle that?” Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we’re in. I would never have handled it that way. Does anybody really believe that Iraq is going to be a wonderful democracy where people are going to run down to the voting box and gently put in their ballot and the winner is happily going to step up to lead the county? C’mon. Two minutes after we leave, there’s going to be a revolution, and the meanest, toughest, smartest, most vicious guy will take over. And he’ll have weapons of mass destruction, which Saddam didn’t have.

        What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who’ve been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing!

        Maybe you should start doing your own homework instead of having me do it for you? The former builds character and the latter just reinforces your sloth and incompetence.

      • “It’s difficult to find anything public because he tried to avoid offending politicians who he might need on his side for business reasons. “
        But Trump didn’t say that he harbored doubts that he was too scared to talk about. He said:

        Though I was not in government service, I was among the earliest to criticize the rush to war, and yes, even before the war ever started.

        I hope you’re not telling us he was stretching the truth?

      • David Springer,

        I for one am certainly in favor of returning US foreign policy to the philosophy of putting the strategic and economic interests of the nation first, and not trying to transform the entire world into some ideal world imagined by the neocons.

      • David Springer

        Politifact acknowledges he was hesitant and skeptical of it before the invasion. They dispute him being “loud and clear” until the Esquire article a year after the invasion. Still 100% true that he was loud and clear in opposition long before any of Bush or Clinton crowd.


      • Danny Thomas

        Yeah, I guess. Was the quote on Stern (your fellow New Yorker’s) program.

        Read harder and stop ‘adjusting’ the past. You were wrong and Trump was too! Being wrong about being wrong is still wrong.

  37. From Full Measure:

    It’s not easy to find how often illegal immigrants commit serious crimes in the U.S., the federal government doesn’t publicize the numbers. Senator Grassley demanded them from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE. What he got was astonishing.

    In 2013 and 2014 alone, ICE set loose 66,565 illegal immigrant criminals who had 166,877 convictions; 30,000 for drunk or drugged driving, 414 kidnappings, 11,301 rapes or other types of assaults, and 395 homicides.

    Already, thousands of those criminals have been convicted of new crimes in the U.S., including felonies and gang offenses, since their release.


  38. David Springer

    Hillary’s slogan “I’m with Her”

    Donald’s slogan “I’m with you”


    Hillary “Get behind what I want”

    Donald “I’m behind what you want”

    Libtard stupidity.

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

  39. More scientists seem to have missed the pattern that history has revealed to all of mankind…


    that your basic commie is always willing to prove that the people will accept up to 100% losses when they are under duress & for the proper cause.

  40. Trump: I have no relationship with Putin.

    But you said for three years running that you have a good relationship with Putin.

    Trump: I have no relationship with Putin.

    But you’re contradicting yourself:

    Trump: Putin won’t go into Crimea.

    He already has.

    Trump: but he won’t go into Crimea


    Just more “mistakes,” eh?

    Too funny

    • David Springer

      Do you have a quote of when Trump claimed he had a “good relationship” with Putin? I can’t find it and it seems no one else can either.

    • David Springer

      Trump said Russia won’t go into Ukraine. The autonomous Republic of Crimea is not the Ukraine proper regardless of Ukraine making a claim on it.

  41. Sharyl Attkisson had an interesting piece on her show today about persons here without proper papers and the non lawful and repetitive activities carried out by same.


  42. And this week Nicaragua started talking about forced labor for citizens to help grow enough food to feed the people. And zoo animals are dying because there is no food for them.

    Socialism in a nutshell. Hope Sean Penn is down there telling folks how proud he is to have backed a group of criminals who destroyed an entire economy.

  43. Also – could you imagine if Trump said (as Mr. Kahn did) that someone had a “black soul”? The BLM morons and the entire lefty media would be going bonkers with racism charges.

  44. This was the lead story for CNN.com this morning. It’s remarkable how Trump always manages to give himself topline billing in the news cycle.

    Standoff? Commission defends debate schedule amid Trump complaints


    • David Springer

      Methinks the commission doth protest too much.

      There has been only 1 presidential debate in the 21st century scheduled opposite an NFL game. Before we have to go back to 1992 to find two of three debates scheduled opposite NFL games. That was Bill Clinton in those two debates and then again 1996 one of two debates were scheduled opposite an NFL game. A Clinton again. It seems this happens whenever a Clinton is involved in the debate.

      The people who would watch an NFL game over a presidential debate wouldn’t largely be blue collar white males would it? Trump’s core voters?

      Nah. I’m sure it’s just all coincidence. /sarc

  45. From the article:

    Soon, dozens of U.S. tech firms, including top Clinton Foundation donors like Google, Intel and Cisco, made major financial contributions to Skolkovo, with Cisco committing a cool $1 billion. In May 2010, the State Department facilitated a Moscow visit by 22 of the biggest names in U.S. venture capital—and weeks later the first memorandums of understanding were signed by Skolkovo and American companies.

    By 2012 the vice president of the Skolkovo Foundation, Conor Lenihan—who had previously partnered with the Clinton Foundation—recorded that Skolkovo had assembled 28 Russian, American and European “Key Partners.” Of the 28 “partners,” 17, or 60%, have made financial commitments to the Clinton Foundation, totaling tens of millions of dollars, or sponsored speeches by Bill Clinton.

    Russians tied to Skolkovo also flowed funds to the Clinton Foundation. Andrey Vavilov, the chairman of SuperOx, which is part of Skolkovo’s nuclear-research cluster, donated between $10,000 and $25,000 (donations are reported in ranges, not exact amounts) to the Clinton’s family charity. Skolkovo Foundation chief and billionaire Putin confidant Viktor Vekselberg also gave to the Clinton Foundation through his company, Renova Group.


    • I’ve been reading a new article this morning (8/3) at Stratfor: Russia’s President Fights to Keep Control, paywalled (so I’m going to be spare with blockquotes) but AFAIK you can get it by signing up for some free emails.

      Behind the walls of Moscow’s Kremlin is a shadowy world of subterfuge and intrigue. In a place where cloak and dagger tactics are the norm, the past month has been particularly chaotic for the elites controlling Russia. Raids, arrests, forced resignations and reshufflings have left the political battlefield littered with the fallen. The world of the Kremlin is intentionally opaque, but one common theme is emerging: There is a grab underway by the Federal Security Service (FSB) to control Russia’s financial flows and assets.


      Traditionally, high-ranking elites do not criticize the president’s policies. Recent months, however, were punctuated by a string of rants by hawks and liberals alike, questioning Putin’s policies and the shrinking rewards that he can offer elites and loyalists in light of Russia’s dire economic situation.


      As security service personnel take over regional governments across Russia, the FSB has been broadcasting its dominance across the country’s security sector. FSB operatives raided the Moscow offices of the Investigative Committee on July 19, arresting the head of its Moscow branch, his deputy and the internal affairs division chief.


      A report from Russia’s RBC TV (which regularly receives credible leaks from within the Kremlin) claims that the FSB informed Putin of the raid — and not that Putin consented or ordered the move. If true, this means that the FSB made a very high-level strike before consulting with Russia’s president, something unimaginable to the elite ranks of the Kremlin.


      The crackdowns are not just about power; they also aim to increase the FSB’s control over economic and financial decisions and assets. And the FSB is not just going after its rivals. It is also consolidating from within, which could put one its most powerful leaders — FSB alum and Rosneft chief Igor Sechin — more and more at odds with Putin.


      Adding to the murkiness, the purged generals were replaced by members of the Internal Security Directorate’s 6th Service, a section of the FSB nicknamed “Sechin’s task force.” Sechin set up the 6th Service in 2004, when he was deputy chief of the presidential administration, to expand his power base through increased influence over energy firms, security loyalists and businessmen. The question now is whether Putin sanctioned Sechin’s power grab within the FSB, a move that will not only further empower his loyalists but also give Sechin the power to target money and assets across the country.


      Putin created his own exclusive military in April and appointed his personal head of security, Gen. Viktor Zolotov, to lead the force. Stories of Zolotov’s clashes with the FSB have swirled for years. But the gossip reached new heights in 2015, when Putin went missing for 10 days after rumored infighting among the FSB, Zolotov, Putin and Chechen President Ramzan Kadyrov, following the assassination of opposition leader Boris Nemtsov.

      Two weeks ago, Putin abruptly canceled a string of domestic trips, leading to speculation as to why he was suddenly refusing to leave Moscow. Perhaps Putin remembers the “vacations” Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev was forced to take before he was removed from his post. The presidential spokesman told the media July 28 that the Kremlin would no longer be publicizing the president’s travel schedule, another sign that Putin may need to remain at his home base. Amid what looks to be another Kremlin intrigue like that of 2015, opposition heavyweight Roman Dobrokhotov tweeted last week: “Cops are afraid of the prosecutors, prosecutors are afraid of the Investigative Committee, Investigative Committee is afraid of the FSB, FSB is afraid of Kadyrov, Kadyrov is afraid of Putin, and Putin is afraid of everybody.”

      Now, how does all this tie in with the Clinton campaign, and the DNC hacking?

      It looks to me as though Clinton is actually signalling support for one of Putin’s opponents: perhaps “FSB alum and Rosneft chief Igor Sechin”. In fact, although the Clinton campaign is trying to equate Putin with Russia, and Trump’s tolerant attitude towards him as some sort of treason, it seems much more plausible that Clinton is interfering in the upcoming Russian election, and Kremlin politics in general.

      The DNC hacking, and especially the delivery of emails to Wikileaks, may have been some sort of desperate defensive ploy, either by the GRU against a Clinton/Sechin alliance, or by a cyber-unit of Putin’s new natsgvardiya, perhaps against that same Clinton/Sechin alliance, or to embarrass the GRU, or even both at once.

      • Ak

        Very interesting. So is it a rolling coup?

        How do they view the West?


      • @Tonyb…

        How do they view the West?

        Well, based on this article (also paywalled), I’d guess they’re very paranoid. Unfortunately, their neighbors have every reason to be paranoid of them. Russia The Russian core is pretty much indefensible, especially from the West. At least until they hold both Poland and East Germany.

        No matter how far west the Russians moved on the European plain, there was no point at which they could effectively anchor themselves. Ultimately, the last effective line of defense is the 400 mile gap (aka Poland) between the Baltic Sea and Carpathian Mountains. Beyond that the plains widen to such a degree that a conventional defense is impossible as there is simply too much open territory to defend. So the Soviet Union pressed on all the way to the Elbe.

        At its height, the Soviet Union achieved all but its final imperative of securing ocean access. The USSR was anchored on the Carpathians, the Black Sea, the Caucasus and the Urals, all of which protected its southern and southwestern flanks. Siberia protected its eastern frontier with vast emptiness. Further to the south, Russia was anchored deeply in Central Asia. The Russians had defensible frontiers everywhere except the North European Plain, ergo the need to occupy Germany and Poland.

        Today, many of their former buffer zones are members of NATO, and the possibility of Ukrainian membership in NATO naturally frightens them.

        OTOH, all their neighbors have great incentive to join NATO, or any other alliance that offers protection against Russian expansion without too much interference in their internal affairs.

        It’s a very sticky situation, given Russian imperial ambitions that go back centuries. But for the moment they’re not pursuing any special ideological agenda (not openly at least), so they’re much less of a threat to the US than the Soviet Union was. I see no reason why US voters shouldn’t take cognizance of this in looking at candidates’ positions.

      • Ak

        Thanks for the latest link, I will read it shortly.

        I was googling about the subject and came across this archived Bbc article from 2002


        Go to the last quote which basically states the security service was trying to engineer a coup then, as they did in 1991!

        So it seems that the latest example you quOte is but the Latest in a series of power struggles. Putin remains popular with the ordinary people so I can not see him being deposed at present.


      • Stratfor and its chief editor George Friedman have been flogging this “Putin can’t survive” narrative for a long time, at least since a couple of years ago:

        Will Putin Survive?

        The chief editor of STRATFOR, George Friedman in a strangely eccentric article titled ‘Can Putin Survive?’ tells us he can’t survive…

        To be sure the propaganda offerings on STRATFOR sites are vastly more sophisticated and less crude than the anti-Putin hysteria from Wall Street Journal or other supposed “great newspapers”. These work the lowest-possible propaganda, for example “Putin’s Dirty War” and “Putin’s Dirty Money Economy”….

        Supposedly, according to Friedman (and the US State Dept as well as Wall St Journal) Putin is running out of luck with the Russian economy. His ability to hold things together will now decline as trust in his ability to manage the economy declines. Politburo oligarchs will soon become concerned about the consequences of staying too close to Putin. Friedman says they will melt away. Remaining oligarchs …”closely tied to a failing leader [will] start to maneuver. Like Khrushchev, who was failing in economic and foreign policy, Putin could have his colleagues remove him”.

      • George Friedman and Stratfor

        Having been impressed with the youtube clip Lauren posted on Friedman’s presentation in Chicago, plus the content of his interview I posted in the Eurasia thread earlier today, I opted to read some of the other material he is offering to subscribers.

        And I have to say it is pretty damn poor, low-key and punch pulling stuff. Witness below where, amongst other things….

        This essay is almost certainly designed as part of the US strategy to regime change Putin.

        It also, in my opinion, shows Friedman and Stratfor to speak with a forked tongue.

      • AK

        Thanks for your link that I read with interest

        It may be that the perspective of Europeans and America is different but I view Russia as very much a European country, albeit somewhat wayward.

        It lays claim to being the third Rome and the inheritor of the holy roman empire, an empire that is so central to western culture and history. Until the revolution, Russia also had links to many of the monarchies of Europe including our own. They are as concerned with islami@ terrorism as is the west, with good cause. It is easy to see their perspective as being threatened by NATO without agreeing with it.

        Personally, because we have a lot of mutual interests, I would like to see Russia brought back into the western fold, albeit it will always be, like Britain, slightly semi detached because of our histories.


      • @Tonyb…

        […] I view Russia as very much a European country, albeit somewhat wayward.

        I’m not sure I could agree. If you’d said “European empire”, then I would. The logic behind their need to defend themselves by controlling/conquering their neighbors makes sense to me, in context of history.

        Until the revolution, Russia also had links to many of the monarchies of Europe including our own. They are as concerned with islami@ terrorism as is the west, with good cause. It is easy to see their perspective as being threatened by NATO without agreeing with it.

        That was sort of my point.

        OTOH, it’s also easy to see their neighbors’ perspective. Also without necessarily agreeing with it.

        […] I would like to see Russia brought back into the western fold, […]

        I think, in many ways, it was assumed by 1992 or so that it had been.

        As I see it, nobody, even the Russians themselves, can really distinguish between the Russian and the Communist imperial incentives that drove Soviet behavior during the Cold War.

        Just because Russia is responding to some geopolitical incentives that have existed since before Peter the Great doesn’t mean they’ve suddenly become Commies again. But most of their powerful leaders grew up under that regime, and many of them served in the KGB or other security organs.

        And thanks for the BBC link.

      • @Glenn Stehle…

        Stratfor and its chief editor George Friedman have been flogging this “Putin can’t survive” narrative for a long time, […]


        It’s not a “‘Putin can’t survive’ narrative” and only observers like Andrew McKillop, riding their own hobby-horses, and/or ig0rant of intelligence, would think it is.

        A good intelligence organization should present possibilities and estimates of probabilities without reference to wishful thinking. I’ve been reading Friedman’s work for decades, and I’ve seen little or no sign of tendentious agendas.

        McKillop, OTOH:

        Whipping up and fomenting power struggles inside the Kremlin to unseat Putin, which is now the clear strategy of the US and several European states, is dangerous meddling.

        Anybody who’s ever bothered to study Russian government, from the court of Katherine the Great through Putin, knows that such power struggles are inevitable, and always present in potential, if not always actually.

        That’s not limited to Russia of course, although they have their unique brand. It’s common across most of humanity, one way or another, as well as our closest relatives.

        But reporting the possibility of such power struggles is the job of intelligence. If the possibility is there, they should report it, along with their best guess of probabilities.

        This essay is almost certainly designed as part of the US strategy to regime change Putin.

        I would have to say that the commenter, this David Guyatt, is also pretty ign0rant of intelligence. The article expresses an opinion, along with some guesses of probabilities, but is hardly “part of the US strategy to regime change Putin.

        OTOH, Hillary’s efforts to blame Putin for the DNC hacking, and tie him to Trump, could well be part of an effort to do just that.

  46. I’m sorry for the Kuhn’s loss. The Dimowits trotted them out to score some points, but they are now being hoisted by their own libtard.

  47. From the article:

    Media hypocrisy about grieving parents on full display

    The media found a new hero in the grieving parents of fallen soldier Humayun S.M. Khan, they delivered a scathing speech against Donald Trump at the DNC and are publicly mourning their son by campaigning for Hillary Clinton.

    Despite that several statements in Khan’s speech were hyperbole and just well done political theater, the media has praised them as redefining American politics.

    Yet when Pat Smith, the mother of a victim of the terrorist attack in Benghazi spoke she was fact checked and attacked by members of the mainstream media. Chris Matthews bashed Smith, calling her comments “a gross accusation” and said of the grieving widow “I don’t care what that woman felt.”


  48. The way the MSN spins things! You couldn’t make this stuff up.

    Clinton gets bump in polls after convention

    The “bump” Clinton got was as follows:

    Before DNC:

    Trump 42
    Clinton 41

    After DNC:

    Trump 41
    Clinton 43

    Those slight differences in the numbers are within the margin of error of the poll.

    • David Springer

      To be fair I figured Clinton got a 3-point bump too. I based that solely on USC/LA Times Daily Tracking poll. It would have been a 5-point bump if they hadn’t thrown Bernie supporters under the bus by my calculation which takes into account changes in 3-way and 4-way polls. Meanwhile Trump got a 5 point bump in his convention. A fair conclusion is Trump did better with almost twice the convention bump that Clinton got.

      • That news story was from last night’s CBS Evening News.

        CBS this morning has come up with some new poll numbers:

        Did Clinton get a post-convention bump?

        Hillary Clinton has received a bump in support after the Democratic convention and has now pulled ahead of Donald Trump.

        Forty-six percent of voters nationwide say they’ll vote for Clinton in November, while 39 percent say they’ll back Trump. The race was tied last week after the Republican convention. Clinton led by a similar margin in June.

        Clinton got a four-point bounce after her party’s convention, compared to a two-point bump for Trump after his convention.

        This latest CBS poll is for a Clinton vs. Trump matchup.

        A Reuters/Ipsos poll came up with similar numbers, giving Clinton a 40% to 35% advantage over Trump in a Clinton vs. Trump matchup (amongst “likely voters”).

        However, throwing Johnson and Stein into the mix, Reuters/Ipsos came up with a 37% to 37% tie.


        Maybe the calculaiton by Clinton Inc. to throw Sanders voters under the bus wasn’t such a good one.

      • David –

        How’s that “nowcast” that you were so breathless about the other day working for you, bro?

      • ==> ” A fair conclusion is Trump did better with almost twice the convention bump that Clinton got. ==>



      • –snip–

        So far, four pollsters have released national surveys using samples taken after the end of the Democratic National Convention, and have data from the post-RNC period. The median swing is a 7.0 ± 1.1 % (± estimated SEM) move toward Hillary Clinton.




      • David Springer


        There is dispute amongst pollsters as to whether Trump got a convention bump at all. No dispute he rose 5 points in July due to something so assign it wherever you want. Something with timing close to the convention did it. The competing theory is bad news for Hillary/Obama with all the terrorist attacks here and abroad plus the bathroom server email brouhaha where the FBI labeled her criminally careless with classified information but thought bringing prosecution was weak due to lack of evidence of criminal intent which was code for she’s too big to jail.

        Pretty weak tea you’ve been serving up about Trump. If that’s the best you got it ain’t nearly good enough when I have such a rich and soiled track record of Hillary from phucking up the Middle East in four years as secretary to funneling bribes from the Middle East into the Clinton Foundation in trade for State Department access, to voting for the Iraq war when she was a Senator. It’s like shooting fish in a barrel. That’s why Trump doesn’t have to spend any money to stay even. HIllary is running against herself and she can’t spend enough to make people forget what a sh*tty track record she has.

      • David Springer


        Poll averages are too coarse for attribution. You suck at attribution which is a fact revealed long ago by your inability to attribute potentially changing climate with any cause other than man-made CO2.

        For attribution I’m using USC/LA Times daily tracking poll which is wonderful for seeing the immediate effects of short-acting stimuli. Poll averages are better for looking at overall momentum or inertia.


        This paints an entirely different picture, exactly the one I described, and they even have the convention dates shaded in on top of an interactive slider with daily poll results.

      • David Springer

        Another reason I like USC/LA Times is the poll is conducted by a liberal university, sponsored by a liberal major newspaper, in a liberal state so in the tank for Hillary it isn’t funny. This is especially distressing for liberals, in effect betrayal by liberal institutions who should be in the bag for Hillary and blowing sunshine instead of bad news. Wicked of me I know. I will confess to Schadenfreude in this regard.

        This poll also uses the largest number of polled individuals among any of the pollsters and thus has the smallest margin of error.


      • –snip–

        The USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times tracking poll, which has generally shown favorable results for Trump, still shows Trump ahead by 4 percentage points, although Clinton has recovered slightly from a 7-point deficit a few days ago. Note, however, that the USC poll uses a week-long field period, so only about half of its interviews came after the DNC.


        Have you always had a problem with premature articulation?

      • In the tank for Hillary despite being an outlier in trend off Trump-favorable results.

        I have to correct for a mistake I made earlier when I implied that the only argument you have is “they do it too.” You also have your paranoid argument that any inconvenient data must be because of s conspiracy. Which, of course, is just another form of a self-victimhood mentality.

      • Joshua, don’t forget ‘if the shoe fits wear it’ either…


        even though you only wear the left shoe.

      • Danny Thomas


        Tricked? Seems like a pretty intelligent person. Degreed at Harvard Law from what I read. And she’s formerly an educator. Says something. Wonder if they tricked him to go on teevee shows afterwards to continue the discussion and in which Trump ‘participated’. Do you see Mr. Kahn as a ‘useful idiot’? Based on?

        Note the date of this article vs. the opinion offered on the blog post at the hill.

        “Khan also explained that despite the family’s desire for privacy, they decided to participate in the Democratic National Convention “because a tribute was being paid and there was context to my conversation. We had been patiently subjected to the maligning of this candidate for a whole year.”

        And I wear two shoes. Left and right.

        IMO, this was a road down which Trump should not have ventured.

      • David Springer

        J0shua writes to me:

        “Have you always had a problem with premature articulation?”

        Yes but it happens so infrequently it’s not a problem. You were right about the poll and I was wrong. Savor the moment.

  49. The police union takes on the mayor of a small town north of Boston because the mayor decided to hang a Black Lives Matter poster on city hall.

    Why doesn’t the mayor just hang an “I’m with her” poster on city hall?

    Where is the ACLU when you need them?

    VIDEO: “Black Lives Matter” poster divides residents in Mass. town

  50. It looks like China has its unapologetic hawks like Hillary Clinton and Victoria Nuland too:

    ‘Give them a bloody nose’: Xi pressed for stronger South China Sea response

    [S]ome elements within China’s increasingly confident military are pushing for a stronger – potentially armed – response aimed at the United States and its regional allies, according to interviews with four sources with close military and leadership ties.

    “The People’s Liberation Army is ready,” one source with ties to the military told Reuters.

    “We should go in and give them a bloody nose like Deng Xiaoping did to Vietnam in 1979,” the source said, referring to China’s brief invasion of Vietnam to punish Hanoi for forcing Beijing’s ally the Khmer Rouge from power in Cambodia….

    [T]he hardened response to The Hague ruling from some elements of the military increases the risk that any provocative or inadvertent incidents in the South China Sea could escalate into a more serious clash….

    “The United States will do what it has to do. We will do what we have to do,” the source said. “The entire military side has been hardened. It was a huge loss of face,” he said, declining further comment….

    Yue Gang, a retired colonel, said China’s announcement promising regular air patrols over the region showed it was seeking to deny the U.S. air superiority afforded by aircraft carriers. China should be confident enough to provoke an incident and drive the U.S. out, he added.

    “China is not intimidated by U.S. carriers and is brave enough to touch off an inadvertent confrontation,” Yue wrote on his Weibo account.

    China’s military build-up in the region looks set to quicken regardless of any action.

    “We must make preparations for a long-term fight and take this as a turning point in our South China Sea military strategy,” Li Jinming of the South China Sea Institute at China’s Xiamen University wrote in the Chinese academic journal Southeast Asian Studies.

  51. Islamic State calls on members to carry out jihad in Russia

    Russia, like Europe, is much closer to the fire than the US is, and therefore does not perceive it to be in its best interest to continue stirring the hornets’ nest.

    As John Mearsheimer pointed out:

    America’s interventionist policies are the main cause of its terrorism problem. Nevertheless, terrorism is a minor threat [to the strategic interests of the United States], which is why Washington is free to continue pursuing the policies that helped cause the problem in the first place.


  52. Another example of all the love, tolerance and inclusiveness that springs forth from Clinton Inc.

    VIDEO: Bernie Supporter at DNC — ‘I Thought This Only Happened At Trump Rallies’

  53. How Trump Turned the US Foreign-Policy Consensus Upside-Down

    The Republican nominee doesn’t just disagree with Democrats—his ideas represent a break with a long list of policies that have won bipartisan support for decades.

    To understand the ways in which Trump’s candidacy represents a break from decades of U.S. foreign-policy consensus—including in most, though not all cases, Republican orthodoxy—it’s more useful to follow the old axiom of show-don’t-tell with an inventory of the policy proposals Trump has suggested, juxtaposing them with the old, agreed-upon approach. Here’s a cheat sheet on the GOP nominee’s divergences from the established path.

  54. Free Trade and Moral Hypocrisy

    The trade deals of the last 20 years have brought enormous profits to Wall Street and considerable political leverage to the neo-imperialist clique that dominates our foreign policy.

    Their ideological champions in the media, desperate for a new argument, are now scrambling to drape these agreements with a mantle of moral superiority. American workers who complain are now told that they should be ashamed of themselves.

    Why? Because opening up our markets to deregulated trade and foreign investment helps workers in other counties who are even poorer.

    Paul Krugman tells his New York Times readers that they should support “open world markets…mainly because market access is so important to poor countries.”

    Similarly, Charles Lane in the Washington Post writes that Bernie Sanders’ criticism of trade deals is “selfish” toward people in “poverty more grinding and miserable than anything even the worst-off Americans have experienced in recent years.”

    And Zack Beauchamp of Vox writes that the moral question is, “how much we’re willing to hurt the world’s poor in order to help ourselves.”

    If you are suspicious of moralistic rationales to justify economic policies promoted by the rich and powerful, your instinct is correct. The argument here is fraudulent….

    Self-sacrifice for others is a noble sentiment. But claiming moral superiority by demanding that other people do the sacrificing is unprincipled hypocrisy….

    [T]he sacrificing is reserved for those low and middle income Americans who are already being kicked down the economic ladder by investor-privileged globalization.

    There is a nasty subtext at work here — smug upper class professionals’ contempt for working people.

    Globalization’s “losers” are caricatured as older white men without college educations who have been overpaid to work in U.S. factories– and are probably racist and sexist to boot. The New York Times’ Roger Cohen dismisses them as “Trump’s people. And Le Pen’s”….

    [D]emocrats, embracing the demographics of identity, have apparently decided they don’t need the white guys anymore….

    The elites’ claim that American workers need to suffer so that workers in developing countries can prosper….

    But NAFTA protected investors, not workers. So while Mexican autoworkers are roughly as productive as their U.S. counterparts, their wages are 15-20% of what American make.

    And the gap between U.S. and Mexican wages remains as wide as it was 20 years ago. Meanwhile, NAFTA enabled U.S. subsidized agribusiness to drive millions of Mexican farmers and their families off the land and into cities where they found few jobs that could support a family.

    Just ask yourself this question: If NAFTA was so wonderful for the Mexican poor, why did so many then decide to risk their lives crossing over to the United States in search of work?….

    The assertion that that American workers should sacrifice their jobs and their children’s future so that third world plutocrats can bid up real estate prices in Manhattan, Los Angeles and Miami makes a mockery of moral compassion. No wonder U.S. voters aren’t buying….

    The world clearly needs a new model of economic integration, in which the enemy of the American worker is not the Mexican or Chinese worker, but the multinational crony capitalists who are exploiting them both.

    Demands by well-fed pundits that downwardly mobile Americans further tighten their belts may satisfy the elite’s moral pretentions, but they will not help us find an economic model that works for people everywhere.

  55. David Springer

    Ghazala Khan: Trump criticized my silence. He knows nothing about true sacrifice.


    This is true enough. Trump is just now entering public service and he certainly doesn’t need the salary or benefits of it. It can’t be easy at 70 years of age to take on such a huge stressful job either. At any age really.

    To be fair I doubt Ghazala encouraged her son to go fight a war against Muslims so it’s not like she made a voluntary sacrifice either. No mother encourages her children to get into gunfights do they? I doubt his father was thrilled about it either so it’s really the son who’s the hero. If the parents want to lash out at people not responsible, Trump had NOTHING to do with their son’s death while Hillary most certainly did vote for that war, then those people unfairly targeted by the grieving parents are justified in defending themselves against the assault.

    Although if I were Trump I’d have simply pointed out their grief inspired hate is directed at the wrong candidate and left it alone. But that might have kept Trump’s name in the news for long and he’ll bring out that defense later and make the press look stupid for not seizing on Hillary being the one who voted for the war which killed Ghazala’s son. Duh.

  56. From the article:

    Does it matter whether Mr. Trump has sacrificed “…nothing and no one?”…has Ms. Clinton “..sacrificed” for this nation? How about Mr. Obama? Your comment stating that Mr. Trump “…has sacrifice no one” is alarming. Are you intimating that YOU sacrificed? Sir, your son willingly sacrificed himself. As a father I cannot imagine the pain you must feel but his sacrifice is his own. He was not forced to serve.

    I am troubled that you would allow a party that has little more than contempt for the US Service Member to parade you into the DNC to denounce Donald Trump.


    • David Springer

      I read it at the source:


      I also emailed the author thanking him for his service and for echoing my, a fellow Marine veteran’s, thoughts on the matter.

      Kahn’s performance like a trained seal for the Democrats is repugnant and he greatly dishonors the memory of his son by trading in his name to score cheap political points.

      I guess sometimes the apple falls very far from the tree.


  57. From the article:

    EXCLUSIVE: Breitbart/Gravis Blockbuster Immigration Poll Demonstrates Americans Want Total Revolution Against Mass Immigration


  58. David Springer


    Dear Mr. Khan,

    I want to preface this letter by stating that I respect your son’s sacrifice for this great nation. By all accounts, he is a true hero that sacrificed himself in service to our country. For that I am thankful.

    As a veteran, I watched your comments at the Democratic National Convention with a mixture of sadness, and anger. The United States has a military comprised of volunteers. Every single member has made the conscious choice to join the military and serve. There is not a single service member who has been forced into service. It is important for all service members (and apparently, their families) to understand that service to this great nation does not imbue one with special privileges or rights. I found your comments troubling when you said: “Have you ever been to Arlington cemetery? Go look at the graves of brave patriots who died defending the United States of America. You will see all faiths, genders and ethnicities. You have sacrificed nothing and no one.”

    Does it matter whether Mr. Trump has sacrificed “…nothing and no one?”…has Ms. Clinton “..sacrificed” for this nation? How about Mr. Obama? Your comment stating that Mr. Trump “…has sacrifice no one” is alarming. Are you intimating that YOU sacrificed? Sir, your son willingly sacrificed himself. As a father I cannot imagine the pain you must feel but his sacrifice is his own. He was not forced to serve.

    I am troubled that you would allow a party that has little more than contempt for the US Service Member to parade you into the DNC to denounce Donald Trump. Did you watch when protesters at the DNC booed and heckled Medal of Honor recipient Capt. Florent Groberg? Did you notice your party interrupting the moment of silence for slain police officers? Your own hypocrisy in not denouncing these acts and instead using the DNC as a platform to make a political point is disgraceful. The simple fact is that whether one served or sacrificed does not give greater power to their statements. One vote is as valuable as another. That sir, is why our Country is great. Your condemnation of one person for a statement while standing idly as your party disparages veterans and police officers is the height of hypocrisy.

    To conflate the need to prevent potential terrorists from entering our country with the belief that ‘all Muslims’ should be banned is simply wrong and disingenuous. As a reminder, Mr. Trump said: ” “Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life,” The irony of your son’s own death at the hands of these very people in Iraq should not be ignored. I have little doubt that your son would have recognized the need to protect our country from these very people. In fact, he held is own troops back so that he could check on a suspicious car. Your son understood sacrifice and how to protect “his people”…’his soldiers’….’his fellow Americans’…

    As you continue to make the media circuit and bask in the glow of affection cast upon you by a party that has little regard for your son’s own sacrifice, and veterans in general, I would ask you to consider your comments and your position more closely.


    Chris Mark

    US Marine and Navy Veteran.

  59. David Springer

    Khizr Kahn hasn’t read the constitution he accuses Trump of not reading.

    Kahn ignorantly waves the document claiming that Trump’s desire to have a moratorium on Muslim immigration from terrorist-supporting countries is unconstitutional.

    Really. Where in the constitution does it grant a right to foreign nationals to enter the United States?

    Mr. Kahn you’re a dumbass tradiing your dead son’s name for to make political points for your religion. Shame on you. Captain Kahn is a hero. His father is a shameless ignorant assh0le.

    • David Springer

      What, no comment from the peanut gallery upon being informed the constitution doesn’t protect the right of foreign nationals to enter our country as Mr. Kahn claimed?

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

    • I am fairly sure the Constitution is against depriving any rights based on religion alone which is not where Trump stands. I think now it is narrowed down to no Muslims from certain active countries (and which countries, France?). Maybe there will be another iteration when he realizes that is also unconstitutional because it has religion in a blanket condition.

      • Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


        It doesn’t say anything about presidential executive orders.

        It also doesn’t say anything about any “rights” of potential immigrants.

      • If he puts a stop on all Muslims entering the country, they will just say they are not Muslims, then what? Did he think it through or did he just say that for the stoopid people to believe? Constitutional or not, stoopid is what it is, and racist to boot. The current laws (based on the Constitution) do not support discrimination on the basis of religion.

  60. David Springer

    Arch Stanton | August 1, 2016 at 6:09 pm |
    Joshua, don’t forget ‘if the shoe fits wear it’ either…


    even though you only wear the left shoe.


    Great article, Arch. Good find. Everyone needs to read it.


  61. David Springer

    Arch Stanton | August 1, 2016 at 6:09 pm |
    J0shua, don’t forget ‘if the shoe fits wear it’ either…


    even though you only wear the left shoe.


    Great article, Arch. Good find. Everyone needs to read it.


    • Yes Arch, great article. Who couldn’t realize that Khan isn’t smart enough to figure out for himself what he was doing?

      Reminds me of how “the blacks” can’t figure out that they should be voting for Republicans because Republicans know what’s in the best interest of “the blacks.”

      • David Springer


        He knew what he was doing alright. Protecting his immigration law practice. And here I thought he was campaigning on his son’s tombstone to protect his religion.

        I’m so stupid. He was doing it to protect his law practice.

        Follow the money.
        Follow the money.
        Follow the money.

        Write that down. I did three times because once just isn’t enough.

    • The MSM has choreographed the presidential race like a WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment) event.

      The characters are highly exaggerated and unrealistic, with Trump playing the role of villian and Clinton the hero.

      The narrative is a highly simplistic melodrama designed to appeal strongly to the emotions, but not to reason and factual reality.

      It has all the key constitutive factors of a good vaudville act: pathos, overwrought or heightened emotion, moral polarization (good vs. evil), non-classical narrative structure (e.g., use of extreme coincidence and “deus ex machina”), and sensationalism (emphasis on action, violence, and thrills).

      It all makes for great entertainment, and good ratings.

      The MSM choreographing of events to fit the melodramatic narrative is unmistakable:

      VIDEO: Kurtz — Mother of Benghazi Victim Ignored While Parents of Slain Muslim Soldier Made Headlines

      Trump vows to “punch through.”

      Trump: “We Are Going To Punch Through The Media”

      Something tells me Trump is right, being this is about the gazillionth time the MSM has rang the death knell for Trump. Those not inside the Clinton echo chamber can see through the melodrama.

  62. Trump has a prejudiced view of Muslims. I haven’t checked the numbers, but I think there are thousands of times more American Muslims who have served for America than have become terrorists against America, yet Trump in his own mind first associates Muslims with this non-representative minority, marking out his prejudicial territory, and bringing equally ignorant people into it. It takes viewpoints like that represented by Khan to point out where most American Muslims stand. You would not know it at all from just listening to Trump. He says this is about terrorists. No, that was not what Khan was about. Khan was about the patriotic majority, and Trump completely whiffed on that when trying to bat all Muslims down. A better response from Trump would have started by acknowledging that patriotic majority, but I don’t think he believes it, which is a problem.

    • Look at Europe JimD. But since you bring it up, I do seem to remember a special Muslim serving at Ft. Hood.

      • Europe is not as integrated as America and Trump knows that, perhaps not. For every Christian terrorist you name, even ex-military ones, I could say that a thousand served as patriots in the military, same for Muslims.

    • Teh Donald:

      And when you have radical Islamic terrorists probably all over the place, we’re allowing them to come in by the thousands and thousands….

      Ah yes. “Thousands and thousands” of Islamic terrorists coming over the borders.

      Trump? Painting with a broad brush? Fear-mongering for political advantage?

      Who could possibly think that?

    • David Springer

      Shouldn’t people like Kahn be condemning Islamic terrorists like the ones who attack the US at home and abroad? Like Iranian leaders and people who chant death to the US. Like those that killed his son captain Kahn?

      But nooooooo… instead he trades on his dead son’s heroic death in order to promote his religion. It’s disgusting. He’s giving me a negative opinion of “average” Muslims whereas before he stuck his stupid beak into political advocacy I didn’t have anything against quiet Muslims assimilating into American society.

      Good work Kahn, You’re turning people against you and your religion by parading your son’s death on the nightly news to promote your religion.

      • Hey David –

        You were pretty excited about the 538 “nowcast” a few days ago…

        How’s that working for you now, bro?


      • Danny Thomas


        “Shouldn’t people like Kahn be condemning Islamic terrorists like the ones who attack the US at home and abroad?”

        “We are faithful, patriotic, undivided loyalty to this country. We reject all terrorism. She asked me not to say that because that was not the occasion for such a statement. We say to his ignorance, I address his ignorance, that the dirt effect, the most effect of the menace of terrorism have been Muslims in the world, Muslims hate this menace of terrorism as much as any other place.”

        “It is our duty to keep this country, our country, beautiful country, safe. We have always thought of it that way, we will continue to do our part to keep it safe and beautiful. What he cites in the name of Islam, and all that — that is not Islam at all!

        I wish he would have, somebody would have put something in his head that these are terrorists, these are criminals, these folks have nothing to do with Islam.”


        Interesting how you state outright that Mr. Kahn is: “You’re turning people against you and your religion by parading your son’s death on the nightly news to promote your religion.”

        When Mr. Kahn has actually done what you suggested he should. He’s criticized terrorism while differentiating between it and Islam. But recognition of same, by you, wouldn’t fit the narrative.

      • Hi David –

        Looks like you got it right diametrically wrong.


        Since Clinton and Trump were roughly tied after the GOP convention, a 7-point lead for Clinton would mean she’d gotten about a 7-point bounce, double the size of Trump’s.



        But then again, you’re used to that, eh?

      • Hi David –

        Here you go, my friend. First-every giving of a negative effect on a candidates chances coming out of a convention. Compare Clinton’s numbers to Trump’s.


        Gotta say, David, you are really spectacular at being wrong.

      • Joshua you need to wait until the last couple of weeks before the election. 538 flip flops like a porpoise:


      • David Springer

        Occasionally yes. I already admitted an error in this case. I realize no number of times will be enough for you but this is the last time. Thanks for playing.

        I’m confident Trump’s numbers will come back up. They always do.

      • 538 basically just uses real clear politics polls:


        Polls-plus: Combines polls with an economic index. Since the economic index implies that this election should be a tossup, it assumes the race will tighten somewhat.

        It goes by State not national.

        Although realclearpolitics has trump winning FL by less than 1%. Whereas 538 shows Clinton by a hair.

      • Ordvic –

        I am making fun of David’s frint-running from a few days ago as a foem of amusmwnt.

        On the ither hand, long term polling results plus polls relatively closely to post conventions has proven pretty accurate. Of course, anything can happen…but previous weeks of polling plus the polling now provides a pretty reliable prediction.

      • Muslims suffer more from jihadists than any religion, but Trump uses his broad brush to paint them all the same way. The way Trump went after the Muslim mother for just standing there not saying anything says something about his innate hate of Muslims. It is a form of racism the way he says things like that just because she is a Muslim, and it came out loud and clear. It is for his base who think like that too, and it gets him their votes. Trump’s birtherism comes from that mindset as well as his thinking about Mexicans. It is really very deep inside him – no pivot coming in that area.

      • David Springer

        I didn’t even know what “now-cast” was referring to. I blundered into it today. It’s not a regular poll I follow. My primary election year information site is Real Clear Politics and the polling outfits they use. USC/LA Times is in those. Now-cast isn’t.

        So how’s Now-cast working out for me? Probably too soon to say.

        Volatility is extreme in Now-Cast which may or may not prove useful.

        Nate Silver doesn’t have a good track record this election year and RCP doesn’t carry any of his polls. I may check it more often to to check for how large public reaction to any specific thing might be. I don’t believe at this point it has much predictive skill. How can it when the probability range changes by 50% or more in a single day? It flip-flops so much it makes Mitt Romney look like he’s been reading from the exact same script since birth.

      • David –

        Show some accountability, dude. You were on here breathlessly posting the nowcast results. That’s why I just waited a few days and posted the same forecast to show how foolish you were. You need to calm down, stop being so emotional, and to do more careful analysis.

    • David Springer

      Shock poll: 76% of independents have unfavorable/very unfavorable view of Islam

      I’m not sure but independents are the ones that decide US elections, right?


    • catweazle666

      Jim D: “Trump has a prejudiced view of Muslims.”

      And you have a prejudiced view of Trump.

      • My view is based only on what he says out loud. If he doesn’t really mean it, then I may be wrong.

  63. From the article:

    Paul Nehlen is just one of hundreds of candidates running for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives this year, but the businessman and inventor is running as if he’s in a national race. In a way, he is.

    His Republican primary opponent, after all, is House Speaker Paul Ryan. And with the election scheduled for August 9, national attention is intensifying as the campaign comes down to the wire.

    “It’s absolutely a national campaign,” Nehlen told WND. “Paul Ryan opposes 92 percent of the GOP electorate on immigration and seven out of 10 voters on the Muslim refugee pause. Think about that for a moment. That is monumental.

    “Paul Ryan has said he will not fund a wall and he will sue Donald Trump over his comments on Muslim immigration. It would be everything Paul Ryan could do to cause Mr. Trump to be a one-term, ineffectual president.”

    Nehlen never thought he would run for office, much less challenge the sitting speaker in a primary. He has spent his life in manufacturing and industry. He currently serves as senior vice president of operations for a water filtration and disinfection technologies company, and as an inventor he recently secured his fifth patent.

    However, when Nehlen read Sen. Jeff Sessions’ report on what was in the new Trans-Pacific Partnership deal, he immediately dashed off a letter of protest to Paul Ryan, who was his congressman. He also phoned Ryan’s office to see if what Sessions wrote was true, but he didn’t get an answer. He had to go to other countries’ websites to verify what he had read about the TPP was, in fact, true.

    “I was absolutely incensed,” Nehlen recalled.


  64. It looks like Obama is greasing the skids for Killary Klinton to turn all of Africa into the killing fields.

    • Obama Orders Air Campaign Against ISIS in Libya, Escalating ‘No-Boots War’

    The U.S. Military Pivots to Africa and That Continent Goes Down the Drain

    Then, of course, there was the American (and NATO) intervention in Libya in 2011, which cracked that autocratic country open and made way for the rise of Islamic extremist movements there, as well as the most powerful Islamic State franchise outside Syria and Iraq.

    Today, plans are evidently being drawn up for yet more air strikes, special operations raids, and the like there.

    Toss in as well Washington’s never-ending drone war in Pakistan’s tribal borderlands, its disastrous attempt to corral al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen (leading to a grim and horrifying Saudi-led, American-supported internecine conflict in that country), and the unending attempt to destroy al-Shabaab in Somalia, and you have at least seven wars and conflicts in the Greater Middle East, all about to be handed on by President Obama to the next president with no end in sight, no real successes, nothing. In these same years Islamic terror movements have only spread and grown stronger under the pressure of the American war machine….

    [With] the U.S. military’s pivot to Africa, the pattern is only intensifying,…

    What’s strange, however, is that none of this seems to have caused anyone in the national security state or the military to reconsider the last 15 years of military-first policies, of bombs dropped, troops dispatched, drones sent in, and what the results were across the Greater Middle East and now Africa. There is no serious recalibration, no real rethinking. The response to 15 years of striking failure in a vast region remains more of the same….

    Over these last years, the number of personnel, missions, dollars spent, and special ops training efforts as well as drone bases and other outposts on the [African] continent have all multiplied. At the same time, incoming AFRICOM commanders have been publicly warning about the escalating perils and challenges from terror groups that menace the command’s area of operations. Almost no one, however — neither those senators nor the media — has raised pointed questions, no less demanded frank answers, about why such crises on the continent have so perfectly mirrored American military expansion….

    [T]he senators who are supposed to provide oversight haven’t seemed to bat an eye, let alone ask the obvious questions about why terror groups and terror attacks are proliferating as U.S. operations, bases, manpower, and engagement across the continent grow….

    In an era of too-big-to fail generals, an age in which top commanders from winless wars retire to take prominent posts at influential institutions and cash in with cushy jobs on corporate boards, AFRICOM chiefs have faced neither hard questions nor repercussions for the deteriorating situation….

    If history is any guide, the number of terror groups on the continent will not decrease, the senators will fail to ask why this is so, and the media will follow their lead….

    The increasingly bleak outlook in Africa can’t simply be laid at the feet of AFRICOM’s commanders. Again and again, they’ve been upfront about the deteriorating situation. Washington has just preferred to look the other way.

  65. Oh jeeze! This is all we need, some techno-utopian billionaire like Jeff Bezos joining the war party so he can advise the neocons as to why their hallowed Revolution in Military Affairs went off the tracks so badly.

    Heaven help us.

    Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos joins a group led by ex-Google CEO Eric Schmidt to advise the Pentagon

  66. Springer and maybe some others will remember Joule Unlimited. They were a “green” tech company that supposedly would use cyanobacteria to make gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. Found this little tidbit:

    Also troubling about Podesta’s position on the board of Joule Unlimited, alongside Russian officials that received $35 million from a Putin-linked Russian government fund, is that he failed to fully disclose that information and include it in his federal financial disclosures before he became President Obama’s senior adviser.

    The GAI report also included a timeline, titled “John Podesta and Russia Fund: A Timeline,” which details the specifics surrounding Podesta’s membership on the executive board of Joule Unlimited.

    The new revelations come as the Clinton campaign looks to link GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump to the Russian president and his government.

    However, as the bombshell Government Accountability Institute report reveals, Bill and Hillary Clinton, along with her campaign chairman, are the ones with alarming ties to Putin and the Russian government.


    • David Springer

      It’s not an indictment of Joule Unlimited AFAIC. The BoD includes a Nobel prize winning American geneticist too. It’s not news to me it had big names on it. The Russia connection is new information to me. There’s German money in it as well. We’re no longer at war with either Russia or Germany. There may still be technology transfer restrictions with Russia. I was involved in a potentially huge computer sale to Russia’s education ministry in 1992 when some of the restrictions were lifted.

      So your point is just about libtard hypocrisy?

      • More libtard lying and kr1em1nal1ty:

        Also troubling about Podesta’s position on the board of Joule Unlimited, alongside Russian officials that received $35 million from a Putin-linked Russian government fund, is that he failed to fully disclose that information and include it in his federal financial disclosures before he became President Obama’s senior adviser.

    • At least he didn’t call for the US to withdraw support from NATO allies in eastern Europe. Imagine what a ruckus that would have caused with the Republicans whose view was that contrarily we should arm Ukraine against Russia (until the RNC Convention, that is).

      • David Springer

        I recall Trump said that NATO members need to either pay their membership dues or get out. Are you implying anything different?

        Are you against NATO members fulfilling their obligations?

      • I am against the US getting out for purely financial rather than strategic reasons. They should be thankful that the Europeans accommodate so many of their troops in such a strategic position.

  67. With it looking more and more like the outcome of the presidential election will hinge on three states — Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida — and how white, working-class men vote in the two rust belt states, it will be interesting to see how Clinton’s perrennial war on white, blue collar men plays out in the election:


  68. The college debt crisis is even worse than you think

    But the merchants of debt (finance sector) are certainly happy with their handiwork:

    GRAPH: Consumer credit, student loans (1945-2016)

  69. Veteran awards Trump Purple Heart as Obama calls for GOP to repudiate Trump

    President Barack Obama said on Tuesday that Donald Trump is ‘‘unfit’’ for the presidency….

    As Obama made his criticisms, Trump accepted a Purple Heart from a military veteran at a campaign rally in Virginia, saying he’s always wanted one.

    If white, working-class men in the rust belt states are the ones who are going to swing the election, as is shaping up to be the case, who do you reckon has the greatest appeal to that particular constituency, Trump or Obama?

    VIDEO: Trump receives purple heart from veteran


    • From the article:

      In 1980, whites without a college degree constituted 65 percent of the US electorate. They were the engine that drove US politics. Today, they are 36 percent of the electorate. That is a huge drop in relative strength.

      And they continue to shrink by two or three percentage points every presidential election cycle as the share of minorities, particularly Hispanics, increases. This demographic phenomenon is occurring in all 50 states, though it varies in different regions.

      In addition, the words Trump uses to evoke the restoration of jobs and status for some groups have a very different effect on others. Working-class whites may be nostalgic for the 1950s and 1960s, but many African-Americans are not. Working-class white men may enjoy Trump’s frank appraisals of women’s appearances, but many women do not. Less educated whites may believe Trump is going to get Mexico to pay for that wall, but more educated whites do not. In rallying one segment of the electorate Trump may be repelling others.


      • I still have not seen the poll numbers that indicate whether Smarty-pants white males are feeling nostalgic for the 50′ until the 70’s, would you please provide a link to the study? I see you speak for women as well… let me guess you want to cast your ballot with Hillary?

      • James Cross,

        That is without a doubt the received knowledge coming from inside the Clinton campaign:

        • The Decline of the White Male Voter.
        Donald Trump can’t rely on the once-powerful demographic to ensure victory.


        • Hillary Clinton doesn’t need white men

        As a result of this conclusion, Clinton made the calculation to throw white, working-class men under the bus. And that’s why we get demonstrations of the sort of stereotyping and demonization of white, working-class men that we see in this interview with Nancy Pelosi:

        Nancy Pelosi: Hillary Clinton Struggles With White Men Because Of “Guns, Gays, And God”

        Trump made a very different calculation than Clinton did. He decided to go after the white working-class vote. We will see come November if he is successful in his attempt to realign the parties.

      • Arch Stanton,

        Polling data shows the extent to which establishment apparatchiks stereotype and stigmatize working-class white males. It doesn’t get much more classist, racist and sexist than Nancy Pelosi, as the following polling data reveals:


      • I don’t think that she has thrown white uneducated workers under the bus so much as it is be impossible for her to make an inroad into their votes anyway.

        Of course, in the long run, the prospects for these voters is dismal no matter who is elected. The coal mines are going to close as coal is replaced by natural gas. Manufacturing is never coming back in any major way as a big employer with good paying jobs. The new factories will be run by robots. Some fracking and pipeline jobs might employ some people but eventually we will have fracked everything worth fracking and the jobs will go away again.

        In this sort of world the Democratic proposals are actually exactly what the white uneducated workers need. That would a world with higher minimum wages, job training, and strong support system of social security, health care.

        Arch, I’m just quoting the article.

        But these voters want to reclaim something – maybe it’s the Reagan era or the 50’s and 60’s. The slogan “Make America Great Again” must mean America was great at one time. Must be before Obama and Clinton because I can’t see anybody thinking the 70’s were all that great.

        Meanwhile more Republicans seem to be jumping ship.

        Even Christie is slamming Trump and one of his aides is voting for Clinton.

        Trump is battling crying babies and fire marshals instead of talking about the economy which is what he needs to do if he is even going to get the white uneducated voters. He is already setting up for the impending failure with his claims that the election is rigged. He’s a cry baby who is constantly plays the victim card just like the uneducated white voters who think themselves victims. I got news for you coal miners and cotton mill workers, you’re victims but victims of capitalism, not victims of political correctness and the Democrats.

        Will the RNC rescind the nomination? I heard a Republican calling for that last night.

        Too gutless I think.

        Of course, the Trump voters would never vote Republican again if the RNC took away the nomination. I imagine the party might disintegrate but at least they would preserve some dignity. Individual Republicans could start over with something of a clean slate and not be tarnished by the stain Trump will leave behind.

      • David Springer

        Yeah but whites with a college degree have hugely increased and they’re still middle class and still getting laid off as businesses close up shop and head overseas. They still saw their health care premiums double etc. etc. etc. They still see police being ambushed and murdered and are disturbed by it. They still know they’re vulnerable to domestic terrorism.

        Whites still comprise 77% of the US population. That’s still too big to fail.

        So what exactly is your point?

        Further reading:


        The Mythology Of Trump’s ‘Working Class’ Support

        His voters are better off economically compared with most Americans.

        The median household income of a Trump voter so far in the primaries is about $72,000, based on estimates derived from exit polls and Census Bureau data. That’s lower than the $91,000 median for Kasich voters. But it’s well above the national median household income of about $56,000. It’s also higher than the median income for Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders supporters, which is around $61,000 for both.

        “Working class” is more inclusive than you might have been led to believe.

        –more at link

      • Yeah but whites with a college degree have hugely increased […]

        Plenty of people with college degrees flipping burgers.

        Used to be, a college degree meant something. Now, it (often) just means you spent another four years of high school. With fancier buildings.

  70. The neocons are circling in for the kill.

    Trump is now caught in an ambush, with the politically correct neocons (e.g., Clinton Inc.) on one side and the patriotically correct neocons (e.g., John McCain, Lindsey Graham, etc.) on the other.

    The warmongers certainly don’t believe they had anything to do with causing Captain Kahn’s death.

    John McCain Condemns Trump’s Attacks on Khizr Khan, Joining Other Republicans

    • richardswarthout

      Glen Stehle

      A bit loosy goosy with the words?


    • Between the politically correct and the patriotically correct, the neocons and the Rinos, Trump has his work cut out for him.

      Paul Ryan Gets Standing Ovation at Koch Donors Retreat After Repudiating Trump’s Trade Policies

    • David Springer

      This is going to backfire. Kahn, as it turns out, was in it for the money. He’s an immigration attorney and his clients come from his home country of Pakistan. Trump’s proposed moratorium on Muslim immigration from certain countries would have most certainly included Pakistan. Kahn was protecting his business. He doesn’t worship Allah so much as he worships the dollar. Typical American Muslim in my experience. I used to work at a small company owned by Iranian refugees. Money was everything religion was nothing.

      Worshipping the almighty dollar is certainly as American as Apple Pie.

      The problem is when you try to protect your business by trading on your son’s ultimate sacrifice to his country. He’s almost literally trying to use his son’s tombstone as a shield for his legal practice.

  71. The Clinton camp is falling into the same trap as Remain

    A terrifying disregard for facts and experts is also a hallmark of both campaigns.

    I wonder why.

    The public certainly has a “terrifying desregard” for experts. But when it comes to the facts part, it’s the public who gets it right. The experts are nothing but a bunch of paid liars and bumsuckers.

    • richardswarthout

      Also, 64% of the public believes that Trump and Clinton are equally dishonest and untrustworthy. A bad year for the USA.


    • David Springer

      Trump has a YUGE lead among independent voters in regard to trustworthiness according to Quinnipiac poll:

      38. Regardless of how you intend to vote, who do you think – is more honest and trustworthy: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?

      Independent: Trump 44%; Clinton 29%;


      • David Springer

        Everyone ought to check out that poll focusing on how independents feel. I had no idea Trump enjoyed such a large lead among independents voters. For instance when asked who independents think will win the election (question 28): Trump 47%; Clinton 36%

  72. Watching the Kelly File last night with my 22 year old son, we saw 3 people with military ties use words to the effect of, You don’t criticize a Gold Star Family. So I was trying spin this a bit. I asked who says you can’t criticize a Gold Star Family? Suppose one uses that status as a shield to criticize a candidate at a national convention? I am not suggesting any planning on anyone’s part. Who would have expected Trump to do as he did? Are we supposed to use our status as a shield from criticism?

    Meanwhile weapons get built that aren’t wanted by the Generals. Bases cannot be closed because of the jobs they provide to a politician’s region. And wars get fought (and arguably lost) without coherency. Who sent that young man off to where he died? Little of this can be blamed on Trump.

    Yes, Trump should have followed the pundits rules. Cater to the military. He doesn’t do that. Two peoples feeling were hurt? But they stepped onto the national stage. While I might agree with the pundits about smart politics, Trump keeps challenging assumptions.

    • ==> Yes, Trump should have followed the pundits rules. Cater to the military. He doesn’t do that. ==>

      Are you serious? His campaign is full of exploitng pro-military sentiment.

  73. From the article:

    Khizr Khan, the Muslim Gold Star father that Democrats and their allies media wide have been using to hammer GOP presidential nominee Donald J. Trump, has deleted his law firm’s website from the Internet.

    This development is significant, as his website proved—as Breitbart News and others have reported—that he financially benefits from unfettered pay-to-play Muslim migration into America.

    A snapshot of his now deleted website, as captured by the Wayback Machine which takes snapshots archiving various websites on the Internet, shows that as a lawyer he engages in procurement of EB5 immigration visas and other “Related Immigration Services.”

    The EB5 program, which helps wealthy foreigners usually from the Middle East essentially buy their way into America, is fraught with corruption. U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has detailed such corruption over the past several months, and in February issued a blistering statement about it.

    “Maybe it is only here on Capitol Hill—on this island surrounded by reality—that we can choose to plug our ears and refuse to listen to commonly accepted facts,” Grassley said in a statement earlier this year. “The Government Accountability Office, the media, industry experts, members of congress, and federal agency officials, have concurred that the program is a serious problem with serious vulnerabilities. Allow me to mention a few of the flaws.”

    Grassley’s statement even noted that the program Khan celebrated on his website has posed national security risks.


    • Mr. Khan is also the founder of two recent pro bono projects, legal services for the families of the men and the women serving in the Armed Forces and legal services for those not represented by the legal counsel especially the elderly, the women and the children in New York. …

      What a horrible guy…

      Smear smear, smear smear, oh what a joy it is.. CE Etc. whistle-blower style. Keep workin’ it.

    • As far as I can tell, he might just have forgotten to pay his web-site bill. Depending on who’s providing his service, what happened could be the result of that.

      I sure wouldn’t trust the folks at Breitbart to properly fact-check something like this, especially as they don’t say anything about having done so.

      Are we supposed to believe the whole Democratic Party doesn’t have people who can help him get his site blocked on Wayback? According to their literature, it shouldn’t be that hard.

  74. VIDEO: Navy SEAL Team Six Leader who led squad that killed Osama Bin Laden — Khans “Part Of Clinton Machine”

  75. Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi Debacle: Arming Jihadists in Libya . . . and Syria

    • Julian Assange has announced that WikiLeaks is soon to publish highly sensitive government e-mails that demonstrate Hillary Clinton’s key participation in efforts to arm jihadists in Syria. Just as in Libya, where Mrs. Clinton championed the strategy of arming Islamist “rebels,” the Syrian “rebels” who ultimately received weapons included the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda, and ISIS.

    • Beltway Republicans were complicit in the Obama-Clinton policy of allying with Islamists, and thus have shown no interest in probing the inevitably disastrous fallout.

    • The Obama administration, like the Bush administration, had touted Qaddafi as a key counterterrorism ally against rabidly anti-American jihadists in eastern Libya. Nevertheless, Secretary Clinton led the policy shift in which our government changed sides in Libya — shifting support to the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies, just as Mrs. Clinton had urged shifting U.S. support to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. In Libya, this included arming “rebels,” who naturally included a heavy concentration of jihadists.

    • The regime was toppled and Qaddafi was brutally murdered — prompting Secretary Clinton’s bizarrely giddy quip, “We came, we saw, he died.” As some of us not-so-giddy types had warned would happen, Libya then became a safe haven for terrorists who turned on the American and Western forces that had cleared the path for them.

    • When Mrs. Clinton testified about the Benghazi massacre before a Senate committee in early 2013, she claimed to have no knowledge of any transfers of weapons from Libya to Turkey, Syria, or any other countries.

    • Was she telling the truth? Were U.S. personnel stationed as sitting ducks in Benghazi in order to help supply weapons to Syria, where it was inevitable they would fall into the hands of America’s enemies? Perhaps we’ll soon find out.

  76. The MSM have worked themselves into a white heat pumping out dreck such as this;

    Candidates, especially Donald Trump, hurting the economy even before the election
    “It could make Brexit look like peanuts in terms of the financial market effect,” says one economist.


  77. From the article:

    Any objective observer of the news media’s treatment of Trump can certainly conclude that reporters are taking a side in this election — and they don’t have to be wearing a button that says “I’m with her” for this to be readily apparent. The irony is that the media’s Trump bashing may wind up having the exact opposite of its intended effect.

    Polls shows that journalism is one of the least respected professions in the country, and with Trump calling out media organizations for their bias, widespread slanted reporting is bound to reinforce this point — and to backfire. Trump’s campaign is throwing down the gauntlet to the political class. If journalists are seen as the mouthpiece of that class, they may soon find themselves covering Trump’s inauguration.


  78. From the article:

    JANESVILLE, WI — Wisconsin businessman Paul Nehlen blasted House Speaker Paul Ryan for his “repeated betrayals” of both Republican nominee, Donald Trump, and the American electorate, who “who want a leader that will put the interests of America and her citizens first.”
    “Paul Ryan’s repeated betrayals of the GOP nominee is beneath the dignity of the Speakers’ office and is morally disqualifying,” Nehlen declared.

    Nehlen’s statement follows Ryan’s decision to join “Hillary Clinton and the establishment media in rebuking Trump’s common sense immigration proposals” with his Sunday statement regarding the Khan family. Ryan then chose to “attack Trump’s trade policies” at an “elite donors retreat” hosted by the Koch brothers.

    “Paul Ryan has shown more passion in attacking Trump than he has ever shown in defending Americans,” Nehlen wrote.

    In particular, Nehlen highlighted Ryan’s refusal to even acknowledge the victims of his open borders immigration agenda — such as the “angel moms” whose children were murdered by illegal aliens.


  79. David Springer

    Khizr Kahn – immigration attorney. His deleted website.


    How many of you knew he was an immigration attorney? I can’t figure out why I’m just now finding this out.

    Trump’s moratorium on Muslim immigration from countries with substantial Islamic radical presence would be a moratorium on Kahn’s clients!

    This was, like, kind of important to know. I was wondering how Kahn was getting paid. The Muslims in America I’ve known worship the dollar more than Allah. That’s why I never really had a problem with them. Worshipping money is as American as Apple Pie.

    • From the article:

      Clinton Cash: Khizr Khan’s Deep Legal, Financial Connections to Saudi Arabia, Hillary’s Clinton Foundation Tie Terror, Immigration, Email Scandals Together

      “Khan spent seven years, from 2000 to 2007, in the Washington, D.C., office of then-Hogan & Hartson,” Polantz wrote. “He served as the firm’s manager of litigation technology. Although he did not practice law while at Hogan, Khan was well versed in understanding the American courts system. On Thursday night, he described his late son dreaming of becoming a military lawyer.”

      But representing the Clinton Foundation backing Saudi Arabian government and having one of its lobbyists bundle $50,000-plus for Clinton’s campaign are hardly the only places where the Khan-connected Hogan Lovells D.C. mega-firm brush elbows with Clinton Cash.

      The firm also handles Hillary Clinton’s taxes and is deeply connected with the email scandal whereby when she was Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton set up a home-brew emailClinton Cash: Khizr Khan’s Deep Legal, Financial Connections to Saudi Arabia, Hillary’s Clinton Foundation Tie Terror, Immigration, Email Scandals Together server system that jeopardized classified information handling and was “extremely careless” according to FBI director James Comey.

      “A lawyer at Hogan & Hartson [Howard Topaz] has been Bill and Hillary Clinton’s go-to guy for tax advice since 2004, according to documents released Friday by Hillary Clinton’s campaign,” The American Lawyer’s Nate Raymond wrote in 2008, as Hillary Clinton ran for president that year. “The Clintons’ tax returns for 2000-07 show combined earnings of $109 million, on which they paid $33 million in taxes. New York-based tax partner Howard Topaz has a broad tax practice, and also regularly advises corporations on M&A and executive compensation.”


      • Jeez, I wish we knew as much about Trump’s taxes as this. Why don’t we?

      • David Springer

        Possibly for the same reason we can’t see transcripts of the paid speeches Hillary gave to Wall Street?

        Or possibly for the same reason we can’t see those 33,000 emails Hillary deleted off her bathroom server?
        Brought to you by the “Bipartisan Two Wrongs Make a Right Commission on Fair Dinkum Campaign Practices”, the “Sauce for the Goose is Sauce for the Gander Society”, and “Futuer Tit for Tat Leaders of America”.


  80. David Springer


    Obama paid $400,000,000 cash bribe to Iran. Airlifted cash in unmarked bills.


    WASHINGTON—The Obama administration secretly organized an airlift of $400 million worth of cash to Iran that coincided with the January release of four Americans detained in Tehran, according to U.S. and European officials and congressional staff briefed on the operation afterward.

    Wooden pallets stacked with euros, Swiss francs and other currencies were flown into Iran on an unmarked cargo plane, according to these officials. The U.S. procured the money from the central banks of the Netherlands and Switzerland, they said.

    • David Springer


      I am reaffirming that the United States government will not make concessions, such as paying ransom, to terrorist groups holding American hostages.

      I’m not sure but this might be an impeachable offense. It is definitely a crime if the ransom were paid in US dollars which is why the Obama administration arranged to pay it off in Euros, Francs, and other non-US currency.

    • That’s a small fraction of the Iranian cash they held for sanctions. Are you sure it isn’t just their own money going back to them?

      • David Springer

        The White House says it’s a debt obligation that dates back to the Ayatollah Khomeini in the 1970’s. No connection to 4 American hostages in Iran being released simultaneous with the ransom regularly scheduled balloon payment on a 40-year old debt. LOL

        I’m not sure of anything. It’s breaking. Pay attention. I opened the comment with “breaking news”.

    • “The Obama administration secretly organized an airlift of $400 million worth of cash”

      Here is John Kerry announcing the payment at the time, on Jan 17 this year.

  81. David Springer


    Ransom payment story makes Drudge Report front page big font headline.

    Here we go.



    • $400m is one quarter of one percent of the amount of money ($150b) that had been held from Iran during the sanctions, just for perspective. The Republicans have to make the case that the hostages were not worth this small amount and would prefer them to still be there in addition to making the link between the money and the hostages. Initially it was claimed that these hostages were returned for the $150b deal, so this is small potatoes by that comparison which never flew anyway.

      • David Springer

        The US government does not pay ransoms. It’s long standing US policy and is against the law. It encourages more hostage-taking and ransom demands. Your rationalizations don’t change that, do they?

  82. David Springer


    Yeah, deleting a website always works to hide what was on it. It never only serves to make someone look like they had something to hide. /sarc

  83. David Springer


    Charles Woods, the father of Tyrone Woods, one of the Benghazi soldiers who was killed defending his fellow Americans on the night of September 11, 2012, had something to say to Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton on Tuesday regarding her interview on Fox News Sunday. During her conversation with Chris Wallace, Clinton suggested she had not lied to the Benghazi victims’ families and told them the terror attack was actually the spontaneous reaction to an offensive internet video. She held no “ill feeling” toward the family members because their memories must just be fuzzy, she insisted.

    When Fox News anchor Bill Hemmer played the relevant exchange for Woods, who was hearing the audio for the first time, he responded indignantly.

    “There are two options,” Mr. Woods said. “One, either she is lying, or she has a bad memory because of her age or head injury she’s suffered.”

    Woods continued to explain that according to his recollection Clinton told him his son’s death was the result of a YouTube video. It’s the same thing she told the other family members, he added.

    It wasn’t just in private – she then repeated the same lie to the American public at Joint Base Andrews in front of our fallen Americans.

    “She stood in front of my son’s casket and blamed the rage directed at U.S. embassies” on a video, Woods said.

    The media has been skewered this week for offering an outsized amount of coverage to the feud between Donald Trump and the Khan family, while offering little coverage of Hillary Clinton’s behavior toward the Benghazi family members.

  84. As the credibility and legitimacy of so-called “experts” in many fields — economics, climate science, military, foreign relations, etc. — are in full meltdown mode, we’re going to see a lot more of this:

    To some, the Brexit referendum was a failure by economists to persuade UK voters that leaving the EU would entail major economic costs…..

    There is some angst in the economics community about a perceived failure to persuade UK voters of what some see as the overwhelming consensus that Brexit would bring major economic costs. In a thoughtful letter to The Times (28 June 2016), Paul Johnson, Director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), said: “… it is clear that economists’ warnings were not understood or believed by many. So we economists need to be asking ourselves why that was the case, why our near-unanimity did not cut through.”

    Brexit Realism: Maybe Voters Were Not Dumb

    The first comment said it all:

    Perhaps after over thirty years of being told “There Is No Alternative” and watching their jobs vanish and their incomes decline, a majority of British voters no longer believe anything economists tell them?

  85. The lords of capital agree: Clinton is their gal. Why do you reckon that’s so?

    Buffet joins a long list of billionaires — Jeff Bezos (the Washington Post), Carlos Slim (the New York Times), the Koch brothers, J.B. and Karen Pritzker, George Soros, Mark Cuban, Michael Bloomberg, etc. — who are backing Clinton. The list of rinos is extensive, and getting longer every day.

    Warren Buffett backing Hillary Clinton over Trump

  86. Hardcore and notable “skeptic” with as good track record on political positions.


  87. This is one of the few positive articles on Trump at CommieNBC. From the article:

    Donald Trump’s economic positions have been overshadowed lately by his comments on other matters, but Wall Street has taken notice, sending clients research this week to invest around the proposed ideas of the candidate and Republican party platform.

    His call for a repatriation holiday of 10 percent for the more than a trillion dollars in corporate cash parked overseas is among the ideas getting the most chatter on Wall Street right now. It’s also possible Hillary Clinton would propose a similar policy, with some conditions, analysts said.

    “Given the upcoming elections, there is newfound hope that the presidential candidates would be willing to push for a tax holiday so as to bring back the funds, encouraging its use for capital spending and job creation. Donald Trump already has advocated that idea,” Citi Research’s Tobias Levkovich wrote in a note to clients Friday.


  88. –snip–

    Longtime Chris Christie aide Maria Comella says she plans to vote for Hillary Clinton — saying that after Donald Trump’s nomination, Republicans are “at a moment where silence isn’t an option.”


    “Donald Trump has been a demagogue this whole time, preying on people’s anxieties with loose information and salacious rhetoric, drumming up fear and hatred of the ‘other,”


    Bingo. She may be aRepublican, but she got that right.


  89. An Eloquent Silence: The West does not respond to Turkish accusations

    Something very strange is happening. The great majority of the mainstream western media are “under-reporting” the quite monumental events affecting one of the most important NATO allies.

    In the same time more and more accusations and more concrete ones are coming out of Turkey about the West supporting the failed coup! The last one is here

    CIA also behind failed coup attempt: Former Turkish army chief

    To impose a military dictatorship in Turkey is hardly a way to promote “democracy”…

    More accusations are addressed every day to the CIA and US Generals of being behind the coup attempt in Turkey.

    • Regardless of whether the United States was behind the attempted coup in Turkey or not, it represents a HUGE black eye for the Obama administration since US influence in the region will be be greatly diminished in the wake of the failed coup, as is being reported in Mexico:

      • Alfredo Jalife: Análisis Turquia Bajo la Lupa

      Maybe one of the reasons it is being so under reported in the MSM in the United States is because it is such a massive diplomatic setback for the Obama administration.

  90. The story that Andrew McCarthy is reporting in the National Review about how the Obama administration and his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, conspired to arm Islamic terrorist organizations in Lybia and Syria is being reported here in Mexico too:

    Quiénes están detrás de los yihadistas, según Putin y Trump [Who is behind the Jihadists, according to Putin and Trump?]

    If Wikileaks produces, as promised, the smoking gun that fleshes out the conspiracy, we’re talking a scandal of the order of magnitude of the Iran-Contra affair.

    • David Springer

      Yup. It’s all coming out. Obama arranging a $400,000,000 airdrop of cash in small unmarked non-US bills to Iran is the beginning of the end. So glad Hillary hitched her wagon to him. Even the Republican Trump haters in congress won’t be able to resist holding Obama’s feet to the fire.

  91. Khizr Khan and The Triumph of Democratic Militarism

    Against the wishes of her New York Democratic constituents, Hillary Clinton voted with Senate Republicans to invade Iraq. (It was a pivotal vote. Without Democratic support, George W. Bush’s request for this war of aggression would have failed.)

    Humayun Khan, 27, was an army captain who got killed during that invasion.

    Eight years later, the dead soldier’s parents appeared at the 2016 Democratic National Convention — not to protest, but in order to endorse one of the politicians responsible for his death: Hillary Clinton….

    [T]he Khan controversy is yet another spectacular example of the media distracting us with a relatively minor point in order to make a much bigger issue go away.

    A week ago corporate media gatekeepers managed to transform the Democratic National Committee internal emails released by WikiLeaks from what it really was – scandalous proof that Bernie Sanders and his supporters were right when they said the Democratic leadership was biased and had rigged the primaries against them, and that the system is corrupt – into a trivial side issue over who might be responsible for hiking the DNC computers. Who cares if it was Russia? It’s the content that matters, not that it was ever seriously discussed.

    Now here we go again.

    Hillary’s vote for an illegal war of choice that was sold with lies, was a major contributing factor to the death of Captain Khan, thousands of his comrades, and over a million Iraqis. Iraq should be a major issue in this campaign — against her.

    Instead, it’s being used by his parents and the Democratic Party to bait Donald Trump into a retro-post-9/11 “Support Our Troops” militaristic trap. Khan, you see, was “defending his country.” (How anyone can say U.S. soldiers in Iraq, part of an invasion force thousands of miles away where no one threatens the United States, are “defending” the U.S. remains a long-running linguistic mystery.)….

    This is part of Hillary Clinton’s strategy of taking liberal Democrats for granted while trying to seduce Republicans away from Trump.

    The Khan episode marks a high water mark for post-9/11 knee-jerk militarism….

    Next time you see a panel of experts discussing a foreign crisis, pay attention: does anyone argue against intervention? No. The debate is always between going in light and going in hard: bombs, or “boots on the ground.” Not getting involved is never an option. As long as this militaristic approach to the world continues, the United States will never have enough money to take care of its problems here at home, and it will always be hated around the world.

    Most Americans believe the Iraq war was a mistake. Who speaks for us? No one in the media. And no one in mainstream politics.

    • David

      I have not heard anything of this matter other than at these pages.

      Are you saying that Obama paid Danegeld to Iran, or was the payment and the release two unrelated matter? I do not know the timescale between the two events.


      • It’s hard enough to figure out what’s really going on in the US if you live here. I’m sure you are having a horrendous time deciphering it.

        The majority of all media types here in the US are in the tank for the left. They are globalist and socialist. You really have to dig on the internet and find multiple sources for anything you read or hear about anything political.

      • Tony,
        As I noted above, the whole thing was announced and hashed out back in January. There is no news here, except maybe the mode of transmission of the funds. It seems the money was due to be paid – can you imagine what the loud folk would have been saying if the payment had been made without the release of the detained persons?

      • Nick

        So were the US administration paying for the release of the prisoners or not?


      • Tony, here is one take on it from the time. The 400 million was for military equipment bought by the Shah of Iran but not delivered when he was overthrown. But this source describe all the US concessions as a ransom.

        From the article:

        It’s been an eventful and consequential few days with respect to US-Iranian relations. While some will cast several major developments as unalloyed positives (see updates for details regarding the headline on this post), each comes at a substantial price: (1) The Obama administration secured the release of three Americans — a Washington Post journalist, a pastor and a former Marine — held hostage by the regime. While this is no doubt extremely welcome, heartwarming news for each man’s family and friends, the Wall Street Journal’s editors note that the US government paid a “steep ransom” for this outcome, which they describe as an Iranian triumph:
        Mr. Obama also announced the resolution of another argument between Tehran and Washington that dates to the Iranian revolution, this one over $400 million in payments for military equipment that the United States sold to the shah of Iran and never delivered when he was overthrown. The Iranians got their money back, with $1.3 billion in interest that had accumulated over 37 years.


      • At the end of Nick’s linked article it says that the Republican Party chairman claimed that the pre-Islamic revolution debts both ways many years ago. But even despite that Iran is not accepting this payment as final settlement either.

        … He [Chairman Preibus] went on to say all of the US claims against Iran at the tribunal had long been settled and had netted American companies and individuals $2.5 billion.

        But Kerry added there are more Iranian claims pending and that the United States would try to negotiate to resolve them.

        So maybe we can try to settle that debt with the next group of hostages.

      • Tony,
        As said, all this was hashed out in January, when the payment was announced. Jan 16 was actually the date of activation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, ie nuclear deal. This was a very big deal indeed, and controversial, of which the $400M and prisoner exchange (7 Iranians were also released) were a small part. The US says the prisoner matters were kept separate – many doubt that. I doubt that they could (or should) have been totally disregarded.

      • Thanks for the various replies.

        Nick seems to be implying that there is a linkage between the Iran payment and the prisoner release? I hope I have not misrepresented him, but this all seems a bit confused. If however a payment was made that is surely something that is against everything the US and Britain have stood for, in as much they have always said they will never pay for hostages.

        If they have paid Danegeld then surely it is a slippery slope as various enemies will in future take Americans hostage and try to extort money


      • Tony,
        ” If however a payment was made that is surely something that is against everything the US and Britain have stood for, in as much they have always said they will never pay for hostages.”

        Well, Cameron thought it was a great deal.

        David Cameron has congratulated Iranian president Hassan Rouhani after the Islamic republic reached a landmark nuclear deal with world powers.

        And that is the thing – it was a major international agreement that came into effect on Jan 16. It wasn’t something the US agreed to to release a few hostages. There were people who didn’t like the deal. But if it’s happening, what do you think should then have happened? Leave the US prisoners in jail, on principle?

      • It was payment that was owed anyway. In fact, it was negotiated down from a larger amount and related to money that they had confiscated decades ago. The timing was a gesture for releasing the hostages as the Iranians had agreed to. It’s another attempt by the Republicans to take back the news cycle, which usually they own with Trump’s daily utterings, but that these days is rather painful for them, utterings and all.

      • It was “owed” to the Shah’s government, not the terrorist one. Anyway, it’s still not good to trade money for hostages. That just ensures more kidnappings.

      • It was money that didn’t even belong to the US. There’s a big difference. The Republicans by faking that there was some kind of ransom are the ones that are encouraging the hostage takers. This was all history and explained once already, and now they dig it up and play up false rumors so that everyone has to explain it again. That’s where the damage is.

      • Nick

        So it was a quid pro quo? You give us back our confiscated buildings, assets, hostages etc and in return we give you back the stuff we confiscated from you, which includes money and no doubt companies, goods, buildings etc.

        The difference is that we had no hostages of theirs so therefore it looks as if a hostage deal has been done for money when in reality it is all part of a much greater (international) agreement?


      • “The difference is that we had no hostages of theirs”
        The US returned 7 Iranian prisoners as part of the deal.

      • Tony, read up on what each country gave up. Perhaps the worst part is Iran has a pass for nuclear weapons. There is no doubt Trump would have made a better deal.

  92. At the Gays for Trump Party at the RNC Milo Yiannopoulos said:

    There is a war on. And it is a culture war…. And it is not what you will read on the pages of the newspaper and it is not what you will see on television because most journalists are dorks, and most journalists are idiots, and most journalists don’t understand where the real battlegrounds are.

    The founder of the site that I work for now, Andrew Breitbart, understood instinctively that politics is downstream from culture. He understood that by the time you’re talking about policy and free trade and all the rest of it you’ve already lost the war.

    Because the war is fought in culture. The war is fought in academia. The war is fought in the entertainment industry and the news. These are institutions in America, supposedly the freest country in the world, that have been completely occupied by the political left.


    Trump also operates under this cultural and political theory, where policy takes a back seat to the cultural battle.

    Win or lose, one thing’s for sure, and that is that Trump has already reshaped the cultural landscape.

  93. David Springer


    If ever there was a man who entered the White House woefully unprepared and unfit to be president, it was Mr. Obama.

    Sure, he hummed a good tune about unifying the country, ushering America into a new “post-racial” era. And he spoke of calming the seas and easing global violence and sprinkling peace between Muslims, Jews and Christians in the Middle East and around the world.

    Lord, if we could just have 2008 back again. Those were the good old days.

    Back before cops were targeted for assassination on the street. Before every police action became viewed first and foremost through the lens of radical racialism. Before the leader of the free world saw it as his duty to routinely insert himself into police matters from Baltimore to Cambridge to Ferguson, Missouri, to Sanford, Florida.

    Those were the days before the president denounced people as xenophobes and racists for wanting to enforce the nation’s duly enacted immigration laws. Before tens of thousands of haggard families, children and slaves came rumbling through Mexico on “death trains,” drawn by the president’s illegal invitation. Back in the good old days, before 2008, everyone — including Mr. Obama and Hillary Clinton — all agreed on building a fence to secure our southern border.

    And those were the days before America’s first half-Muslim president traveled the world to apologize for American exceptionalism. Before he traveled to Cairo and told Muslims that “it is part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.” Still looking for that one in the Constitution.

    –more at link

    • David –

      What’s up with this renewed Obama derangement syndrome? Weren’t you just on here the other day explaining how you consider obama as old news and not particularly relevant? Do I remember that incorrectly?

      • David Springer

        If I did then it was probably before he decided to stop doing his job as president and start campaigning for Hillary instead. Thanks for asking.

      • So he was doing his job as president before?

        Can you say “flip flop?”

  94. So have the fact/theory and fact/value dichotomies “collapsed,” as Willard argues? Hillarymongers and CAGW advocates certainly hope so.

    To fight Trump, journalists have dispensed with objectivity

    Why are the rules of journalism being rewritten this election year?

    My local newspaper, the Sonoma County Press-Democrat, is so clearly in the tank for Hillary Clinton that I no longer take pleasure in my morning read….

    This transparent bias is a national phenomenon, infecting both print and television media to such an extent that it has become almost impossible to separate coverage of the Trump campaign from attempts to tear it down….

    The DNC emails, published by Wikileaks, reveal a stunning level of collaboration between important media outlets and the Democrats…. Which raises the question: Why was a major media figure taking his marching orders from the Democratic party chair — and how did this affect his network’s coverage of the Trump campaign?…

    Any objective observer of the news media’s treatment of Trump can certainly conclude that reporters are taking a side in this election — and they don’t have to be wearing a button that says “I’m with her” for this to be readily apparent. The irony is that the media’s Trump bashing may wind up having the exact opposite of its intended effect.

    Polls shows that journalism is one of the least respected professions in the country, and with Trump calling out media organizations for their bias, widespread slanted reporting is bound to reinforce this point — and to backfire.

    • Danny Thomas

      Yep. It’s all about the reporting. (Geez, it’s so much easier to just say there’s a problem with the reporting than actually using eyeballs to see that there is really ‘actually’ just a problem with the candidate):


      Cue denial by ‘Trumpeteer’s’ in 3………2……….1……………..

      • Danny Thomas,

        One cannot help but feeling sorry for people of your kind. You live inside the Clinton echo chamber, completely walled off from factual reality.

        It’s an artifical world, created by MSM elites in the service of tony billionaire fat cats.

        But your world is crumbling, falling down around you.

        It must be very traumatic. And the trauma manifests itself in your highly emotional comments, overloaded with recriminations and sarcasm.

    • So the media were objective before?

    • As I picture it, a journalist is anyone who wants to record their own view of events while on their travels.

      A reporter is someone who tells the facts as they are known by witnesses and the authorities at the time.

      A real newspaper man in a large city, knew new stuff for real.

      Today all we get to drink is alphabet soup, breakfast, noon and night.

    • I did a search on “msm obsolete blogs” (no quotes) and came up with a bunch of good stuff. Some highlights from the top:

      Is Obama Making the MSM Obsolete? (2010)


      The White House Press Corps and the MSM are becoming very nervous. The White House has discovered that they can get their message out to the public without the “filter” of the media to slow them down. Continuing to operate under the template that it is their job to make Obama a success, the MSM has been completely unwilling to call him out on this. Alternatively, President Bush was excoriated by the MSM for avoiding the press for any extended period of time throughout his two terms of office.


      Daily Beast blogger Lloyd Grove relays a recent interview with CBS senior White House correspondent Bill Plante conducted by Mark Knoller, a CBS radio reporter:

      “Technology has made it much easier now for the White House,” Plante went on. “The availability of all this material means that people have to do their own filtering. The so-called mainstream media, which believes it has the experience to do the filtering, isn’t there to do it for them, and for a lot of people that’s just fine. They resent the hell out of us anyway.”

      So what’s wrong with that?

      “In the end, who gets the decent information? The people who rely on trusted filters, whether they’re online or on the air,” Plante replied. “If you do it all yourself, you’re gonna get a load of crap!”

      Hmmm. Excuse me, but I believe that is a difference without a distinction.

      And this was in 2010. Fast-forward to 2016, and the MSM at a “new level of panic” over Trump’s candidacy. Trump has discovered what Andrew Thomas said in 2010: the American public “resent the hell out of” them and don’t believe a word they say.

      The Mainstream Media Is Now Obsolete (2010)


      The quality of that information, its accuracy and its honesty, determines the overall health of the cultures we create. When a source of information becomes compromised by unhealthy political ambition, social dogma, or the strangling hands of elitism, it’s like a poison well, spreading plague and pestilence throughout the nation, or even the world. Widely disseminated lies inspire delirium and madness in the masses faster than typhoid fever.

      In America today, the person searching for a pure source of truth in the media inevitably stumbles across many poison wells.

      Even if they are not yet actively pursuing alternative outlets of information, many people are aware, at least intuitively, when someone is trying to swindle them. You can present us with the assurance of delectable sirloin steaks on ornate silver platters, but if our faces are struck with the sickly stench of decay, we aren’t going to bite. Through its dishonesty and its distinct lack of substance, the mainstream media has turned up more noses than any putrid slab of unkempt beef ever could.

      More on the Incredible Shrinking MSM (2013)


      The rise of new publications like IBT illustrates the reality that the public still wants and needs news. Indeed, the global hunger for real news, useful filters and helpful analysis is growing. What isn’t growing is the desire to read the bloviating, self-indulgent prose of dozens of highly paid, self-important windbags who tweak the conventional wisdom week after week under the illusion that they are making some kind of contribution to public life. (Here at Via Meadia, none of our self-important windbags are highly paid.) The public appetite for theme and variation on the Davos party line is small, and the desire to pay hefty subscriptions for the privilege of reading elegantly phrased iterations of the elite consensus seems to have melted away.


      Ultimately the tire industry created more jobs and helped more people travel more quickly than the horseshoe industry ever did; something analogous is almost certainly going to happen in the world of information as well.


      Because the press elite generally acted as the high priests of orthodoxy in the holy temple of blue, its decline and fall marks a political as well as an economic transition. Power is passing from institutions that play by the old rules and uphold the old ideas to new kinds of organizations operating on different assumptions.

      Thus: Trump.

  95. Beta Blocker

    Donald Trump’s presidential campaign struck another iceberg this week and his vessel is shipping water, lots of it with his latest beyond-the-pale rhetorical blunder.

    Sure, the last ten icebergs weren’t enough to sink him. But the bergs keep getting larger and larger with each passing week.

    Trump is refusing to listen to the advice of his campaign manager and transform his public persona from one of a bomb-throwing outsider populist demagogue to one of a competent presidential aspirant.

    He could switch from one style to the other at the drop of a hat, but he won’t do it. Does he really want to be president? Or is his campaign nothing more than a game he is playing to feed his own massive ego?

    Hillary Clinton will be elected president in November. It’s a done deal at this point. The only question remaining is whether control of Congress passes to the Democrats.

    As for Donald Trump, will he stay with the Titanic and go down with his fast-sinking ship, or will he take to a lifeboat by announcing he is stepping down as the Republican nominee?

    Who would the Republicans choose as a replacement if Trump suddenly quit the race? Mike Pence? Paul Ryan? Ted Cruz?

    Would any other Republican presidential candidate have the slightest chance of being elected come November given the enormous damage Donald Trump has done to the Republican brand?

    • Paul Ryan may hit an ice berg of his own. What we are seeing is a concerted effort by the globalists to wear Trump down. I’m thinking he will let them blow themselves out before he launches the counter-strike.

    • Danny Thomas


      But the entire election is rigged. Rigged, I say. Rigged.

      • RIGGED!!!11!!!!11!!! RIGGED I SAY!!!11!1!11

        There is no end to the ability of Trump and his toadies to decline accountability for how he’s running his campaign. It’s the press. It’s the system. It’s the “elites.” And now he has the perfect explanation if he loses: the election was “rigged.”

        It’s just so unfair!!!!11!!!

        Then again:


        The high accuracy of poll aggregation acts as a safeguard against blatant fraud. In the last few weeks of the Presidential campaigns of 2004, 2008, and 2012, poll aggregates (including those served up here) gave the correct winner in all states where the poll median was more than 1% for either candidate. Polls for individual Senate races and national Congressional popular vote also do very well in Presidential years – thought less so in off-years like 2010 and 2014.



        Hmmm. So if right before the election the polls say he’s losing, and he loses, what will the proof that it was “rigged” be?

        I remember that four years ago a lot of “conservatives,” our friend Gary M among them, said that the polling was skewed. Perhaps that will be the explanation if Trump loses this time?

        Although, amusingly, in the last election after Gary M and company said that the polls were skewed to inflate Obama’s numbers, Obama actually outperformed the polls (albeit by a relatively small amount).

        I love these boyz.

      • David –

        How about some accountability for how he’s run his campaign? He’s losing to a terrible candidate! Imagine what the polling would look like if he were running against a strong candidate!


    • He just needs to take off the glov… done that, well, then he needs to pull down his pants.

    • Hillary Clinton will be elected president in November. It’s a done deal at this point.

      MSM wishful thinking.

  96. David Wojick

    Mere opinion stated as established fact. Trump is doing just fine so no reason to change now.

  97. The full 20-minute video at the botom of the page is the one to watch.

    VIDEO –Tense: Obama Administration Refuses To Give Details About Cash Payment To Iran; “Why Is That Relevant?”

    • Hey, what difference does it make anyway.

    • David Springer

      24 minutes of Obama’s press secretary saying there was no connection between $400,000,000 in small unmarked bills being delivered to Iran and five American hostages being released the next day.

      He wouldn’t even acknowledge that the timing is justifiably suspicious. In effect he says “Look we owed the hostage takers a legitimate debt. We paid that debt by sending a plane full of cash in small unmarked bills. It was pure coincidence that the hostages were released as soon as the debt payment was made.”

      Amazing. No one in their right mind is going to believe that it’s just coincidental.

  98. All the internet news is now getting sucked up by Obumbles idi0lcies. Between him and Billary, Trump isn’t getting a lot in MSM today.

      • We’ve heard this before.

        And yet, in some mysterious way that I certainly don’t profess to understand, Trump always seems to come out on top.

        It’s hard to argue with success.

      • Another amusing configuration of arguments.

        1) trump is a political genius because he manipulates the media by making sensationalist and deliberately offensive comments.

        2) trump is a genus because he understands that no publicity is bad publicity.

        3) trump, who is a winner and very powerful is a victim of the media.

        4) although he’s a genius at manipulating the media, we just can’t figure out how he manages to be so successful.

      • MSM reaches ‘new level of panic’ over Trump’s candidacy. They’re clearly projecting.

      • The MSM just follows what some fairly significant Republicans are thinking. If it was just Dems, just politics as usual, but Republicans? Something is up and they should report on it.

      • The MSM just follows what some fairly significant Republicans are thinking.


        Just for instance, look how much attention they pay to Trump’s refusal to endorse Ryan and McCain:

        They also are angry with Trump because of his refusal in an interview with The Washington Post on Tuesday to endorse two of the GOP’s top elected officials — House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (Wis.) and Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) — ahead of their coming primary elections. [my bold]


        But the idea that the campaign was fully united was undercut when Mike Pence, Trump’s vice-presidential running mate, told Fox News Channel that he “strongly endorsed” Ryan in his primary campaign.


        “[…] The [failure to endorse Ryan and McCain] was like the cherry on the cake.”

        This is ridiculous! Why should Trump endorse one or another Republican candidate prior to the voters having spoken in the primary? These journalists are in such panic mode that they don’t even stop to think how silly they sound.

      • The MSM just follows what some fairly significant Republicans Globalists are thinking. (Fixed it)

      • “Why should Trump endorse one or another Republican candidate prior to the voters having spoken in the primary?”
        Why indeed? Here’s the report:

        Trump praised Ryan’s underdog opponent, Paul Nehlen, for running “a very good campaign” and said of Ryan: “I like Paul, but these are horrible times for our country. We need very strong leadership. We need very, very strong leadership. And I’m just not quite there yet. I’m not quite there yet.”

        Not exactly a model of neutrality.

        I wonder who will rejoice if Nehlen wins?

      • Ryan didn’t even ask for Trump’s endorsement. Trump only said it out of spite, same with McCain. Was he just answering a question? You tell me.

    • Danny Thomas

      I dunno. He’s on the telly now (sound turned off) about sexual harassment (daughter is defending him).

      Plus I saw this one dated today: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/03/trump-campaign-changed-ukraine-platform-lied-about-it.html

      And some Wapo stuff about his campaign in shambles and further GOP rebellion: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gop-reaches-new-level-of-panic-over-trumps-candidacy/2016/08/03/de461880-5988-11e6-831d-0324760ca856_story.html

      But it’s probably a problem with the reporting.

      • Right, any other year softening a hawkish stance wouldn’t be an issue, but this year everything is an issue.

        John McCain has been a senator since forever and has been a “champion” of veteran affairs for as long, but the VA has gone through numerous scandals in the past 10 years with some of the bigger ones in Arizona. His Choice Card program hasn’t been paying so vets are getting collections calls for doing exactly what they were told to do. I doubt the same old same old is what Trump is looking for.

        Trump gave Ryan Paul the same response he had gotten. Whether Trump wins or not, Republican politics will change. Don’t expect lifer Republicans to start loving him anytime soon.

      • Trump is still playing tit for tat, as was pointed out earlier. Ryan’s @$$ is on the line back home.

      • Trump sees that Republican infighting gets the best press. That’s why he does it. This goes back to the primaries where they were all beating each other about the head.

  99. Interview with Clint Eastwood. Little bit on Trump, but if quote it, it won’t be visible :)


  100. From the article:

    As I considered the phenomenon that is Donald Trump, I am struck by how few in the political class understand what is really going on. We are experiencing a new American Revolution. On the one side is Trump as the quintessential outsider. On the other side are those who would lord over us, the entrenched and all too politically correct, the establishment. But it is Donald Trump, through his wealth and celebrity that has lit the fire of rebellion amongst the voters in this country.

    While the first American Revolution was fought with armies and bullets, this revolution is fought with voters and social media. When those early revolutionaries fought the British, they did so in unconventional ways. They fought from behind trees, used guerilla tactics and killed many of the British redcoats who stood to fight in the traditional terms of that great empire! Donald Trump, while no George Washington, is giving voice to the same revolutionaries, who like the declaration of Patrick Henry, are willing to fight for their freedom and their liberty.

    The pundits state unequivocally that Trump is hitting down, unfocused and unrepentant. We are told that his campaign team is tired of trying to reign him in and make him seem more presidential. Others, including the MSM, decry his daily criticisms of those bought and sold by the establishment and the Clintons. This includes his latest criticism of Khizr Khan, whose law firm and whose Sharia sympathies are anything but focused on the Constitution!

    However, we the people are being crushed by a government that spends our children and grandchildren into an impossible burden, restricts opportunity through the weight of unbridled regulation and limits opportunity by defining “success” through the prism of equal outcome.

    Those who were to fight for us are much like the Loyalists in the first American Revolution, prefer the status quo, the reasoned outcome and the dominance of the existing system. However, the current revolutionaries will have none of it. We are told to open our borders to all matter of illegal and dangerous immigration, denounced for our own American children’s desire to “dream” about their opportunities, divided amongst race, creed and sexual orientation and remanded to the whims of the state through the coercive nature of that bureaucracy.

    Trump has been called erratic and undisciplined, but that belies what I believe is his strategy. Keep them talking about him while he keeps the MSM, the Democrats and the establishment on their heels. Trump has given voice to a new revolution. And unlike the violence of the first American Revolution, we are using the tools of social media, the new media and of course our own organizing principles to upend the status quo. The existing regimes of both left and right have been more interested in their own perquisites and status than governing in a fair and just manner.


  101. Had to edit this one …

    This is CNN: Trump called ‘loud mouth d**k’ live on air


  102. Wow! say it ain’t so.


    FEBRUARY 16–Presidential contender Donald Trump, who has vowed to stanch the flow of narcotics and criminals entering the U.S. from Mexico, once wrote to a judge urging leniency for a friend who was convicted of distributing kilos of cocaine that had been smuggled into the country from Colombia, court records show.



    • David Springer

      Interestingly there’s no copy of the alleged letter where Trump gave a character reference for the guy convicted of peddling cocaine.

      Maybe it was on Hillary’s bathroom server…

  103. This has to be one of the most blatant examples of Hillarymongering by the MSM that I’ve seen, but this gold star dad isn’t having any part of it.

    <blockquote<Benghazi Victim’s Father Flips Script When CNN Asks Him About Trump And Khizr Khan

  104. And she is a Republican Globalist. (Fixed it)

  105. From the article:

    No matter where you come down on voter ID laws, oppressive tool of right-wingers used to suppress minority and low-income voters or simple step to protect the sanctity of elections, one thing is quite clear, committing voter fraud in the absence of voter ID laws is pretty easy. To prove the point, Project Veritas this morning released several undercover videos where journalists were able to walk into polling station across the State of Michigan and vote the ballots of, what should have been, easily recognizable public figures.


  106. NPD. Just sayin’. Does this sound like anyone to you?
    Should a presidential candidate with symptoms be evaluated? NPD people live in a world of their own imagination, and are fragile. It is a concern that people don’t want to talk about, except a few.

    • From USNews

      “Trump is Trump,” observes John Noonan, a former national security aide to Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush who has sworn off voting for the GOP nominee this year. “You can pull somebody out of the insane asylum and staff him with the best people in the business, and he’s still going to be in the parking lot screaming about the book of Revelations and there’s nothing you can do about it. Hillary’s the placekicker on the field. She’s shanking every kick. And Trump’s the guy pleasuring himself in the stands.”

    • Jim D and Nick Stokes,

      You guys are aping the talking points that come straight out of the Hillary propaganda machine. At some point, you might want to take a walk on the wild side, and venture outside the Clinton echo chamber.

      Here’s Howard Kurtz’s response to the talking point you’re aping:

      VIDEO: Kurtz — Pundits Questioning Trump’s Sanity May Need To Take A Look At Their Mental Faculties

      • You guys are aping the talking points that come straight out of the Hillary propaganda machine.

        Well, that’s pretty much what they do about climate, why should anybody expect them to do differently about politics?

      • Danny Thomas

        Entertaining. AK ‘apes’ acknowledgement of Glenn’s comment: “You guys are aping the talking points that come straight out of the Hillary propaganda machine.’ all while Glenn is the most prolific commentator here who suggests he’s not made up his mind to vote for Trump yet most of his links are from the ‘Trump echo machine’.

        Then AK says it’s a mimic of the climate conversation. Yet I don’t think one can find sufficient evidence to suggest that I mimic that part of the discussion whatsoever.

        Maybe just good grunting noises would be the better approach AK (& Glenn).

      • Then AK says it’s a mimic of the climate conversation. Yet I don’t think one can find sufficient evidence to suggest that I mimic that part of the discussion whatsoever.

        Speaking of “Entertaining.

        No, “Danny Thomas”, I wouldn’t put you in that crowd. More in the “Justin Wonder” style, although (supposably) on the other side. But your support for both CAGW and Hillary is clear, despite your efforts to mask it.

        The most “Entertaining” part is how you reacted. If the shoe fits…

      • Danny Thomas


        So very wrong. I am no fan of Clinton. The effort here is to find out why so many of ‘you’ are pro Trump. I don’t see it, and you don’t show it. The best that’s provided is ‘pie in the sky’ stuff. I don’t buy ‘pie in the sky’ any more than I do the “C” in Cagw. (Your crystal ball be foggy there).

        The choice appears to be a buffoon (Trump) or a (near?) incompetent (Clinton). I won’t vote for the buffoon that’s presented. I may have to vote for the (near?) incompetent. Or I may still write in Jon Huntsman.

        Now that’s ‘entertainment’.

      • There are many jobs or levels of security clearance that require a psych exam. President should be one of them.

      • °°°°°Danny Thomas said:

        The effort here is to find out why so many of ‘you’ are pro Trump.

        Nah. Here, let me fix that for you:

        The effort here is to demolish the arguments of ‘you’ who are pro Trump.

        °°°°°Danny Thomas said:

        The choice appears to be a buffoon (Trump) or a (near?) incompetent (Clinton).

        Clinton is merely “(near?) incompetent”?

        If you believe that, you are either collossaly stupid, outrageously naive, or part of the Clinton con.

      • Danny Thomas

        “If you believe that, you are either collossaly stupid, outrageously naive, or part of the Clinton con.”
        Are those the only possible choices Glenn?

      • Danny Thomas,

        Oh, I forgot.

        We have two standards of justice in the United States, one for Hillary and one for everybody else.

        According to the standard applied to Hillary, the criminal acts themselves don’t count as proof of guilt. It is also necessary to prove criminal intent.

    • From the article:

      In addition to the sudden appearance of honor killings, clitorectomies, hijabs and massive government frauds, Muslim immigrants have given us: The most devastating terrorist attack in world history, followed by terrorist attacks at Fort Hood, the Boston Marathon, a military recruiting center in Chattanooga, Times Square, Vaughan Foods in Oklahoma, San Bernardino and an Orlando nightclub, among other places.

      We’ve admitted 2 million Muslims just since 9/11 – that’s more than had been admitted before 9/11. If we don’t make it 3 million, we’re monsters? May we ask how many Muslims Khan’s mystery Constitution requires — or is that out of bounds unless we had a child who died in Iraq?

      Apparently, sending out a victim to make their argument was the only option left for the “Make America Muslim!” crowd.

      After Trump somehow got the crazy idea that a presidential candidate was allowed to discuss government policies and proposed a temporary ban on Muslim immigration — which, by the way, is perfectly constitutional — the entire media and political class erupted in a sputtering rage.

      Conscience of a Nation, Speaker Paul Ryan proclaimed: “That’s not who we are.” Jeb! Bush made the subtle and clever argument that Trump was “unhinged.” Marco Rubio called any pause in Muslim immigration “offensive.” ABC News’ Jonathan Karl called Trump’s plan “outrageous” — which was way better than MSNBC, where Trump was compared to white supremacists and Nazis.

      White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Trump had “disqualifie(d)” himself from “serving as president” for suggesting any slowdown in Muslim immigration. Vice President Joe Biden — tribune of blue-collar Americans everywhere! — said that if Trump were the nominee, Hillary would “win in a walk.”

      Then it turned out Trump’s Muslim ban was a huge hit with actual voters. Hillary, who promises to quadruple the number of Syrian “refugees” we bring in, is quite far from winning “in a walk.”

      So the media and political class had no choice: They had to produce a victim to make their argument, in order to block any response. For their next trick, Democrats plan to produce a little girl whose parents were recently murdered to present their tax plan. (Better make sure they weren’t killed by an illegal alien!)

      Does anyone know what Khan thinks of gays? How about miniskirts? Alcohol? Because I gather we’re going to have to turn all our policies over to him, too. What have you sacrificed, Barney Frank??


      • Ann Coulter has a way of framing things as all or nothing that makes the right wing look looney. Can’t trust that a real honest Muslim has a real honest Muslim son who was a war hero with nothing else to it. It doesn’t fit their mould for a Muslim, gives them cognitive dissonance, so they dismiss it as a plot. Trump is now busy nuancing his Muslim ban to not mean the religion per se, but terrorist regions instead, so he realized his mistake there. He won’t be asking for a Muslim ban in those words again. It’s his way of being PC. Many of his followers will be upset at that softening. Similar things happen with Mexicans where he hasn’t called them rapists since that time either, now it is nuance and PC. POWs not heroes, same thing. he says it once then not again. PC, but also abandoning the base that was drawn by those original remarks. Going soft just makes him look like all the rest to that base, so he still has to swing at people to keep them. It’s not about ideas, more about who he doesn’t like, and they share that with him.

    • David Springer

      This is an improvement! Last month the usual suspects were saying Trump suffered from malignant narcissism. Now it’s just regular narcissism. At this rate he’ll be cured before he’s inaugurated. No worries mate.

  107. Trump campaign rainses $80 million in July, just shy of Clinton’s $90 million. The big difference is that Clinton’s haul comes predominately from the rich writing big checks, whereas Trump’s comes from over a million small donors. Talk about grass roots.

    It’s an unbelievable realignment of the parties, a remarkable reversal of the parties’ traditional roles.

    Who a year ago would have imagined that the Democratic Party would become the exclusive reserve of the rich, billionaire fat cats — home to the Romney Republicans and neocons — whereas the Republican Party would become the party of the little guy?

    Note how CNN spins it, as if the fact the billionaires aren’t funding Trump’s campaign, but have generously opened their checbooks for Clinton, is a bad thing for Trump.

    No wonder they call CNN “the Clinton News Network.”

    Trump campaign hauls $80 million in July, closing gap with Clinton

    Trump still struggles mightily to collect checks from the country’s top donors…

    Yet the success of his digital and direct mail fundraising exceeds senior Republicans’ hopes and shows how he can compensate for his poor relationship with traditional Republican givers.

    “Few Republicans can do that,” Trump said of his low-dollar fundraising at a rally Wednesday evening in Jacksonville. “Maybe no Republican can do that.”…

    The solid month of July fundraising left the campaign with $37 million in cash-on-hand while the joint Trump Victory Fund shared by the Trump campaign, the RNC and several state Republican parties held another $37 million.

    “We are extremely proud of our 69% growth in small-dollar donations which shows the broad-based support of over one million donors across America. Our volunteers and contributors are clearly committed to electing Donald J. Trump as President in November,” the Trump campaign’s finance chairman, Steven Mnuchin, said in a statement.

    Still, the campaign struggled to make a significant dent in tapping bigger donors, raising just $16 million through 20 fundraising events in July, just 20% of the campaign’s July fundraising total. Fundraising events typically require a $1 million minimum in contributions to earn a candidate’s time….

    Clinton’s campaign again outpaced the Trump campaign’s fundraising efforts, pulling in $90 million last month, the Democrat’s campaign said Tuesday, announcing its strongest fundraising month yet.

  108. Here’s an example of the type of rhetological fallacies the New York Carlos Slim Times is employing to stereotype and stigmatize Trump supporters:

    What is happening at Donald Trump rallies?
    CNN Tonight

    New York Times reporters created a video showing all the vulgar language that occurs in the crowds at Donald Trump rallies.

  109. From the article:

    Notwithstanding his war-hero son’s genuinely patriotic example, Khizr M. Khan has published papers supporting the supremacy of Islamic law over “man-made” Western law — including the very Constitution he championed in his Democratic National Convention speech attacking GOP presidential nod Donald Trump.



    Khan defends Sharia law responsible for the executions of gays and women in 11 countries


    • From the Infowars article:

      Khan co-founded the Journal of Contemporary Issues in Muslim Law, an academic periodical that seeks to defend the arcane Sharia law to a legal system based on Western jurisprudence. Of course, Sharia law justifies the execution of gays, prostitutes, blasphemers, and Muslim “apostates” who convert to other religions.

      It’s because of things like this that Milo Yiannopoulos argues that Clinton Inc. has thrown LGBTs under the bus:


      • jim2,

        Trump has been roundly criticized from all quarters for fighting the culture war against the establishment, that he should instead focus narrowly on policy.

        But I believe Milo, and Trump, are right. If one concedes the culture war, then one has already lost the policy war before it even begins. Here’s Milo:


        Although culture wars are distinct from economic wars, one never has to dig very deep beneath the surface of culture wars to find an inner core of economic self-interest. This was as true of the religious wars in Europe of the 16th and 17th centuries as it was of one of Mexico’s most violent religious wars — the Cristero War of 1926-1929.

        After the military phase of the Mexican Revolution concluded in 1920, Mexican President Plutarco Elías Calles wanted to make good on the land reform that had been promised during the Revolution. This would entail taking land away from the landed aristocratic criollos — the hacendados of pure European descent — and redistributing it to the landless indians.

        In order to oppose this, the hacendados allied themselves with the more reactionary elements of the Catholic Church, and protecting their estates was transformed into a religious cause.

        The Cristero Rebellion, also known as La Cristiada, was cast as a widespread struggle in many central-western Mexican states against the secularist, anti-Catholic, and anticlerical policies of the Mexican government. But the real engine behind the rebellion was to stop the government’s confiscation of the hacendado’s lands.

  110. The retired Lt. Colonel who gave Trump his Purple Heart expresses dismay at the way the MSM took Trump’s comments out of context and spun them against Trump:

    Lt. Col. Louis Dorfman: Why I Gave My Purple Heart to Donald Trump

  111. David Springer

    im2 | August 4, 2016 at 9:21 am |


    –thanks Jim. Ann Coulter, as usual, nails it.

    August 3, 2016

    Khizr Khan, the Muslim “Gold Star Father” who harangued Americans at the Democratic National Convention, with a mute, hijab-wearing wife at his side, is just another in a long string of human shields liberals send out to defend their heinous policies. The “Jersey Girls” were the classic example, first described in that magnificent book Godless: The Church of Liberalism.

    In order to shut down a debate they’re losing, Democrats find victims to make their arguments for them, pre-empting counter-argument by droning on about the suffering of their victim-spokesperson. Alternative opinions must be preceded by proof that the speaker has “sacrificed” more than someone who lost a child, a husband, or whatever.

    –more at link

    • [… F]irst described in that magnificent book Godless: The Church of Liberalism.

      That’s obscene.

    • There was an article in one of the Mexico City dailies yesterday written by Alfredo Jalife-Rahme.

      El papa Francisco defiende al islam y fustiga el terrorismo de los yihadistas y del dinero [Pope Francis defends Islam and blasts the terrorism of the jihadists and monied interests

      Jalife was born in Mexico to Lebanese immigrants. However, he spent his childhood in Lebanon and didn’t return to Mexico until he reached adolescence.

      Jalife is one of only a handful of Mexican journalists who has been given a private interview with the Pope. He speeks both Arab and Spanish fluently.

      Jalife, like the Pope, has been critical of US/NATO warmongering — their resource wars and other wars in pursuit of economic interests — in the Islamic world.

      And, like the Pope, Jalife blames the rise of Islamic terrorism not on religion, but on these wars:

      Pope says attacks shows ‘world is at war’, religion not to blame

      Pope Francis said on Wednesday that a string of recent attacks, including the murder of a priest in France, was proof that the “world is at war”.

      However, speaking to reporters aboard a plane taking him to Poland, the pope said he was not talking about a war of religion, but rather one of domination of peoples and economic interests.

      “Not a war of religion. There is a war of interests. There is a war for money. There is a war for natural resources. There is a war for domination of peoples. This is the war,” he said.

      The globalist warmongers, however, don’t look too kindly upon anyone who challenges the permanent war that is necessary to achieve their full spectrum dominance.

      Here, for example, is an article about Jalife from El Financiero, the Mexican equivalent of the Wall Street Journal. In it, the author compares Jalife to the Spanish basketball fans who “incite violence and spread hate” via Twitter, and calls on the Mexican government to censor Jalife because he “inoculates racial hatred and makes calls to violence”:

      Un nazi de México [A Nazi from Mexico]

      Does that sound familiar?

      Mexican oligarchs, like Carlos Slim, the largest stockholder of the New York Times, know how to play hardball.

    • Hey David –

      Remember when you were on here, breathlessly referring to 538’s “nowcast?”

      How’s that working for you, bro?


      • Oh, and be sure to take the time to let the page load completely.


      • David Springer

        It’s working as well as it did when it predicted Trump wouldn’t win the nomination.

        Thanks for asking, broke ass cock gobbler!

  112. Lock her up!

    From the article:

    Instead, Trump’s description of her periodic renewals in Europe are more consistent with someone traveling on a B-1 Temporary Business Visitor or B-2 Tourist Visa, which typically last only up to six months and do not permit employment.

    If someone were to enter the United States on one of those visas with the intention of working, it could constitute visa fraud, according to Andrew Greenfield, a partner at the Washington office of Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy, a firm that specializes in immigration law.

    “It’s quintessential,” he said. “If you enter the United States with the intention of working without authorization and you present yourself to a border agent at an airport or a seaport or a manned border and request a visa, even if there is not a Q&A — knowing that you are coming to work — you are implicitly, if not explicitly, manifesting that you intend to comply with the parameters of the visa classification for which you sought entry and were granted entry.”


    • Did anyone ask Melania when she entered the country whether she is a Muslim?

      That is Teh Donald’s plan to protect us from terrorists. Ask everyone coming into the country whether they are Muslims, and turning them back if they say that they are.

      If Teh Donald does win, I will feel so much safer knowing that if the next Osama Bin Laden lands at JFK, someone will be there to ask him whether or not he’s a Muslim.

    • Might I add the previous paragraph to get the full picture:


      Trump’s tale of returning to Europe for periodic visa renewals is inconsistent with her holding an H-1B visa at all times she was living in New York — even if it was the lesser-known H-1B visa specifically designed for models — said multiple immigration attorneys and experts. An H-1B visa can be valid for three years and can be extended up to six years — sometimes longer — and would not require renewals in Europe every few months. If, as she has said, Trump came to New York in 1996 and obtained a green card in 2001, she likely would not have had to return to Europe even once to renew an H-1B.


      I’m dubious, but if this is all true, it’s absolutely hilarious.

    • David Springer

      Oh darn that auto-correct. Meant to write ever-lovin’ bright runt…

    • From Blog Rules:

      “Comments using offensive words will be flagged by the spam filter.”

      Must not be working too well.

    • David Springer

      So there’s this recently deceased Pakistani rises up to heaven and sees the pearly gates. He knocks for about 5 minutes and finally St. Peter comes to the gate. St. Peter says “Ummm… are you sure you came to the right address?” The Pakistani replies “Oh yes most certainly. I am here for Christ our Savior.” St Peter mumbles “Oh. Right. Sorry” then turns around and shouts “Hey Jesus your taxi is here!”

    • David Springer

      I’m dubious, but if this is all true, it’s absolutely hilarious.

  113. Look what I found! Also this, if anybody’s interested.

  114. Interesting article about internicine politics inside Russia, describing competing pro-Western vs. anti-Western versions of “intelligence” that are used to argue differing responses to the failed Turkey coup.

    Russia debates Turkey

    In Turkey, concessions to the forces of hegemony resulted in a “parallel state” which infiltrated the army and organized a coup d’etat. Erdogan is now hastily getting rid of these pro-Western networks not only in the army, but in all spheres of society. Meanwhile, the Russian “parallel state” is successfully busying itself with disinformation on the Turkish question.

  115. David –

    Stay classy. It’s certainly what we’ve come to expect from you and we’d be terribly disappointed if you changed.

    And you’re such a perfect ambassador for Trump.

  116. richardswarthout

    Who is this man who must put his name in gigantic letters on everything he owns and consistently brags about himself. Who is this man that mocks a handicapped journalist, that ridicules the looks of good looking women, that ridicules the accomplishments of high achieving women, that attacks Ted Cruz’s father with lies, must personally attack anybody that he perceives as unfriendly (scant evidence needed). On the morning after his convention he chose to resurface his outlandish accusations that Cruz’s father was seen with Kennedy’s killer and on the morning after the Democratic convention, after a 1.2% 2nd quarter growth rate as announced, he went after an Iraq war hero’s parents. And during the past week he resurfaced his rage at Ryan and McCain.

    The news now is that key Trump supporters will try to sway him into staying on message. Good luck. He’s a Malignant Narcissist, incapable of cure (a feature of the disorder).

    I saw these behaviors and wondered why, and now I know thanks to a notable expert on the disorder who says the behaviors are classic symptoms.

    • David Springer

      Did Trump use any fancy lawyer tricks to get any child rapists off with a plea bargain?

      If he had would he talk about it and laugh?


    • David Springer

      “Who is this man who must put his name in gigantic letters on everything he owns and consistently brags about himself.”

      Ummm… a billionaire real estate developer whose company is his family name.

      In your opinion was Walt Disney a malignant narcissist too? How about Hewlitt or Packard?

      Oh I know! Henry Ford. His name is everywhere! He was a malignant narcissist right?

      Now John, honestly, what’s more likely; these are business people whose brand is their surname or you’re an ignoramus with a vastly overestimated opinion of your own intellect?

      I know the answer. I think you do too.

  117. David Springer

    Chip Off the Old Block


    A feature of oligarchy is the dynastic ascension of new leaders, children who rise to positions of power and wealth simply by the luck of birth. We welcome Chelsea Clinton to the club.

    Earning $445 Per Second at NBC

    Unlike most well-to-do young people who, after a decent education, take a series of unpaid internships and entry-level positions to begin working their way up some corporate ladder, Chelsea jumped more than a few rungs. Despite never having attended journalism school or otherwise having worked in the field, Chelsea was hired by NBC News to do feel-good stories as part of their “Making a Difference” series. Though the starting salary for such positions is already a chunky $100,000-200,000, Chelsea is being paid $600,000 a year for the same work.

    Or less work. Here is a list of Chelsea’s recent NBC stories:

    — June 10, NBC Nightly News, on diabetes.
    — June 10, Today show, on a car accident in New Jersey.
    — June 5, NBC Nightly News, General Motors safety scandal.
    — June 4, Today show, missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370.
    — June 4, NBC Nightly News, about people pointing lasers at aircraft.
    — June 3, NBC Nightly News, food-borne illnesses.
    — June 2, Interviewed the Geico gecko, an animated character who sells insurance.

    –more at link

  118. David Springer

    Buy hey, I really do admire the Clintons. They’re an inspiration for white trash everywhere that there’s no limit to how far you can go if you work hard enough at lying, cheating, and stealing.

  119. David Springer

    I’m dubious, but if it’s all true, it’s HILLARYous.

  120. David Springer

    Monica Lewinsky was just the tip of the cigar.


  121. David Springer



    Twenty-three years ago during the Clinton administration, Deputy White House Council Vincent Foster was found dead in his car.

    This scandal shocked the country, and raised massive questions about just how dangerous the Clintons are.

    Foster’s apparent suicide was quite suspicious. Two investigators – Robert Fiske and Kenneth Starr – separately concluded that Foster shot himself and died, due to suicide.

    But over time, major questions have been raised about what may have really killed him. Now, recently discovered evidence blows the case wide open!

    Discovered in the files of the National Archives and Records Administration, Starr’s lead prosecutor Miguel Rodriguez submitted a 2-page resignation letter and a 31 page memo about the injuries Foster sustained. Rodriguez notes in the letter details about injuries around Foster’s neck which were not reported in official government documents.

    At the time, the FBi claimed that Foster’s neck injury photos were underexposed, and therefore useless to them.

    –more at link

  122. David Springer

    New Documents Prove Hillary Clinton Murder Cover-Up



    Discovered in the files of the National Archives and Records Administration, Starr’s lead prosecutor Miguel Rodriguez submitted a 2-page resignation letter and a 31 page memo about the injuries Foster sustained. Rodriguez notes in the letter details about injuries around Foster’s neck which were not reported in official government documents.

    The theory is, as Vince Foster was one of Hillary’s closest friends, he knew too much about these scandals. In fact, he may have had a romantic relationship with the then first-Lady:

    This is actually worse than transmitting classified documents on a home email server…

    –MUCH more at link

  123. David Springer

    This campaign is just getting started, folks. Jabs at Trump about calling a out money grubbing Pakistani immigration lawyer for taking potshots at Trump from behind a dead US soldier’s tombstone is mickey-mouse shi*t compared to the Clinton’s long dark history in American politics.

    They should know better than to start a negative campaign war with Donald Trump fercrisakes. But when your track record is as bad as Hillary’s I guess it’s that or nothing.

  124. Obumbles had to take up a defensive position on the 400 million in his speech today. Sweet.

    • The Republicans are trying to frame it to the terrorists as a ransom when it was actually just money owed. Who wins in that argument?

      • David Springer

        A plane full of cash sent to the hostage takers. Immediately after the plane lands and they count the money the hostages are released.

        Obama says that’s not a ransom it’s balloon payment on a 40-year note.

        That’s your story and you’re sticking with it?

        Ooooooooooooooooooooooooookay. Right.



      • Yes, and the Iranians got less than they asked for because they didn’t get interest on their own money when it came back. So they net lost money on that deal plus they gave up their hostages (2-0).

  125. David Springer

    Did Trump have the Director of the FBI in a congressional inquiry confirm numerous lies, criminal acts, and extremely careless handling of classified materials?

    Did Trump leave our Ambassador in Lybia and 3 others to die, sodomized with knives and dragged through the streets, due to worry about offending Lybian officials with a military operation on Lybian soil to rescue them?

    Did Trump then lie through his teeth to the families of those men, and then to the entire US public, about the circumstances surrounding the deaths?

    Trump’s ticky tack crude comments, common on large construction sites in New York City and shocking to one except politically correct pansies and other beltway flowers, are nothing in comparison. He’s merely an ass. Clinton is evil.

  126. David Springer

    Did Trump have the Director of the FBI in a congressional inquiry confirm numerous 1ies, crimina1 acts, and extremely careless handling of classified materials?

    Did Trump leave our Ambassador in Lybia and 3 others to die, sodomized with knives and dragged through the streets, due to worry about offending Lybian officials with a military operation on Lybian soil to rescue them?

    Did Trump then 1ie through his teeth to the families of those men, and then to the entire US public, about the circumstances surrounding the deaths?

    Trump’s ticky tack crude comments, common on large construction sites in New York City and shocking to one except politically correct pansies and other beltway flowers, are nothing in comparison. He’s merely an ass. Clinton is evil.

    • johnvonderlin

      Mr. Vitriol,
      Can you tell me on which continent “Lybia” and its imaginary “Lybians” citizens live? Is it close to “Tuna” or “E-gyp?”
      “”Anger is an acid that can do more harm to the vessel in which it is stored than to anything on which it is poured.” – Mark Twain.
      Given all the time you spend posting vitriol in this irrelevant thread it would seem Twain had it just right. I suggest you push yourself away from the keyboard. Take a walk in our wonderful world. Remind somebody that you love them. You’ll be a better person for it. And I and my scroll wheel will appreciate it.


  127. The Clinton Stories The Media Won’t Cover

    “The Clintons are attractive on the surface. As Yale Law School graduates they have mastered the language and style of the mandarin class. It is only when you walk through the mirrors into the Arkansas underworld whence they came that you begin to realize that something is wrong. You learn that Bill Clinton grew up in the Dixie Mafia stronghold of Hot Springs, and that his brother was a drug dealer with ties to the Medilin Cartel. You learn that a cocaine distributor named Dan Lasater was an intimate friend, and that Lasater’s top aide would later be given a post in charge of administration (and drug testing) at the White House. You learn that Arkansas was a mini-Colombia within the United States, infested by narco-corruption.”

  128. Dinesh D’Souza: ‘Hillary Clinton Wants To Be Mob Boss Of America’

    They believe in the third world way of doing things,” Dinesh said of the Clintons, explaining that his native India is trending towards capitalism and “1950s America,” while the Clintons are wanting to emulate the widespread poverty and government dependence that his home country has too often been known for.

    He continued, “She basically would like everyone to do her bidding. Like, if that guy’s against her, ‘I want to be able to snuff him out without anybody complaining.’ And the Clintons operate this way. They create these mafias. And even Democrats who cross them — their ideas, Omertà, you know, vow of silence and you broke it and we’re done with you and this kind of stuff. It’s making America into gangland, and this movie depicts that in a chilling way, and that’s why I think the movie will be a bombshell in this election debate.”

  129. richardswarthout


    Not all malignant narcissists are murderers. But there is no need to remain ignorant on the subject. A notable expert on narcissism and author of “Malignant Self Love: Narcissism Revisited” provided the following interesting interview:



    • It’s not what you say, according to BHO, it is how many times he can put I or me, into any speech at any given point in time, when he thinks his words count the most, to me and you.

    • David Springer

      I read it the first time you posted it weeks ago. I told you then it isn’t a legitimate diagnosis. It’s not in the DSM. Let me know when that changes or even when you have an opinion from a real expert. Vaknin isn’t a doctor he’s a blogger. If you’re going to simply repeat the same tripe from the same unqualified source you can stuff it up your ass and spin on it.

  130. So who is this General Michael Flynn who introduced Trump at his rally yesterday in Jacksonville?

    Gen. Flynn: Only Intervention In Trump Campaign Is Between the American People and Washington

    From July 24, 2012 to August 7, 2014 Flynn was director of the Defense Intelligence Agency.

    A month after assuming that post, in August 2012, the DIA circulated this document, which acknowledges that the United States sees ISIS as its ally against the Assad regime in Syria:

    While initial mainstream media reporting is focused on the White House’s handling of the Benghazi consulate attack, a much “bigger picture” admission and confirmation is contained in one of the Defense Intelligence Agency documents circulated in 2012: that an ‘Islamic State’ is desired in Eastern Syria to effect the West’s policies in the region.



    Last year Flynn did an extensive interview with Mehdi Hasan of Al Jazeera:

    Former DIA Chief Michael Flynn Says Rise of Islamic State was “a willful decision” and Defends Accuracy of 2012 Memo

    It’s almost painful listening to Hasan. I think he’s probably a very bright fellow, but he pretends that you can put religion in one box and politics in another, and that the two are not inextricably interrelated. He pretends not to know the difference between proximate causes and ultimate, structural causes. He pretends not to know the difference between tactics and strategy. And he pretends to not know the difference between treating the symptoms of a disease and treating the causes of a disease.

    Al Jazeera must be the New York Carlos Slim times of Qatar, and Hasan is merely adhering to the editorial line.

  131. From the article:

    In the general election, Trump is once again refusing to play by the regular rules of the game. When something happens, he speaks his mind without running it by a focus group. Sometimes it comes off great, sometimes terrible. But as he keeps on going, the Republican nominee appears to instinctively grasp something that most in the political world don’t understand. The political types obsess over the convention deals and campaign strategy. They eagerly await the upcoming debate and deep analysis of whether to allocate campaign resources to Ohio or Florida.

    Trump, on the other hand, acts as if he knows that most Americans had better things to do than watch political conventions. He acts as if events in the real world are more likely to impact the race than anything the campaigns do. And, he’s right. At the moment, he’s trailing Hillary Clinton, but not by all that much. Despite breaking all the political rules, he’s still close enough that an October surprise could send him to the White House.

    Does he want that? Yes. Donald Trump wants to be president, but only on his own terms


    • When something happens, he speaks his mind without running it by a focus group. Sometimes it comes off great, sometimes terrible. But as he keeps on going, the Republican nominee appears to instinctively grasp something that most in the political world don’t understand.

      Yup. When he says “I’m gonna build a wall 10 feet high between us and Mexico,” he’s like the middle-class homeowner who says “I’m gonna build a wall 10 feet high” between his property and a neighbor he just had a shouting match with.

      He doesn’t really mean that’s what he’s planning (though it might be), it’s just an expression of feeling. Regular people understand this. When the press nit-pick Trump’s exclamations, they just discredit themselves more with common voters.

      • So when Dodgy Donald judges that a judge can’t do his job because he’s “gonna build a wall,” or when he tells a kid about the materials with which his “wall” was going to be made of, it was just some figures of speech.

      • I love this. So when teh Donald says something, AK and regular people like AK know that he doesn’t really mean what he said, and they know what he really meant because…week…because they’re regular.

        AK. works you be so kind as to explain what teh Donald actually means when he said that he alone can save us from crime and violence? How about when he says that he’s going to stop Isis? How about when he says that he’s going to lower taxes?

        I need a regular person to interpret for me.

      • What did Hillary mean when she said “FBI director Comey confirmed I told the truth about the email server”? I watched Comey say the polar opposite in sworn testimony before congress. What it means to me is that Hillary is a bald faced liiar. What does it mean to you? Help me out J0shua.

      • AK. works [Would] you be so kind as to explain what teh Donald actually means when he said that he alone can save us from crime and violence?

        That he’ll be tougher on crime than Hillary.

        How about when he says that he’s going to stop Isis?

        That he’ll actually do something against ISIS rather than a policy of destabilization that makes ISIS almost inevitable, like Obama/Hillary.

        How about when he says that he’s going to lower taxes?

        That he understands and sympathizes with people’s pain over high taxes. I don’t think anybody believes promises about lowering taxes any more.

      • CIC ,

        Just curious. How many forms of “she does it too” are theoretically possible?

        Because it seems like whenever anyone criticizes Trump here, his toadies break it an infinite variety.

      • AK.

        So your point is that teh Donald doesn’t really mean what he says and can’t be taken at his word, but he means whatever you arbitrarily determine he means, which btw is completely devoid of any meaningful detail, because….well…because you’re a “regular” person which, of coarse, a designation that you arbitrarily determine and assign to yourself. Anyone who might interpret his meaning differently is, of course, not a”regular” person, by definition because they interpret him differently (no true Scotsman).

        Thanks for straightening me out. Can you be held on retainer as a translator, the next time Trump says something?

      • So your point is that teh Donald doesn’t really mean what he says and can’t be taken at his word, […]

        NO politician can be taken at their word. I’d figured that out by the time I was in 5th grade. I guess your education was somewhat lacking. Or perhaps all you did was believe anything the teachers said?

        [… B]ut he means whatever you arbitrarily determine he means, which btw is completely devoid of any meaningful detail, because […]


        I’m just translating a language you don’t speak.

        And of course it’s “devoid of any meaningful detail,” since in the first place it’s a purely emotional utterance, and even if you want to get technical, he doesn’t have the detailed briefings yet to know what he can do and how he can do it.

        Most voters understand this. Except the ones who allowed their grade-school teachers to write whatever they wanted in their heads. Which isn’t most of them. Or at least, most of them took the eraser to it when they got into their adolescent rebellious phase.

        But then, I’d guess you never had an adolescent rebellious phase, and still believe all the socialist schlop your teachers told you.

        [… B]ecause you’re a “regular” person which, of coarse, a designation that you arbitrarily determine and assign to yourself.

        Nope. Which you know.

        No “regular” person would write the way I do. I’ve just spent enough time with a few to be able to model their behavior. I guess you haven’t. Probably get your block knocked off if you tried.

        Thanks for straightening me out.

        You’re welcome.

        Can you be held on retainer as a translator, the next time Trump says something?

        You haven’t paid me for this one.

  132. From the article:

    “Low level politicians” like Angela Merkel and her “very dangerous” migrant policy are more of a threat to European democracy than Islamic State, an American professor has claimed.
    Stanford University professor Francis Fukuyama also said that the working class revolt against globalism lead to the Brexit vote, and will lead to a Donald Trump presidential win the U.S., Die Welt reports.

    Speaking to the German newspaper, Dr. Fukuyama said that while the jihadist ideology poses a serious threat, “the greatest threat to the survival of our democracy…lies in ourselves”. When asked to elaborate, he stated that the people have “lost confidence in our own institutions” giving rise to a surge in populism which is a result of what he called a “disturbing lack of leadership in Europe”.

    He singled out German Chancellor Angela Merkel, saying that: “Germany was supposed to be the country that leads Europe to peace and prosperity. Instead, Chancellor Angela Merkel only cares about the approval of her country”. He then pointed to her behaviour during the euro crisis and her clashes with Greece being “typical”, noting that she is “doing the same with Italian banks”.


    • In Fukuyama’s panegryric of a free and unfettered global market the rising globalists found the theoretical justification they needed to block any attempts by individual nations to remedy the scandalous conditions and democratic deficit that one world government created.

      But Fukuyama deserves credit for one thing. At least he is not so blinded by his ideology, as Clinton Inc. is, to the reality that the dream of one world government has now on the rocks.

      Fukuyama reminds me of the neocons in the wake of the Iraq disaster. The concept of the Iraq invasion was still sound. It was only the execution — the incompetent conduct of the war by Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney — that casused the debacle.

      • Here’s how John Gray describes Fukuyama’s ideology in Al Qaeda and What It Means to Be Modern:

        The Positivists believed that as societies came to be based on science they were bound to become more alike.

        Scientific knowledge would engender a universal morality in which the aim of society was as much production as possible. Through the use of technology, humanity would extend its power over the Earth’s resources and overcome the worst forms of natural scarcity. Poverty and war could be abolished. Through the power of given it by science, humanity would be able to create a new world.

        There has always been disagreement about the nature of this new world. For Marx and Lenin, it would be a classless egalitarian anarchy, for Fukuyama and the neo-liberals a universal free market. These views of a future founded on science are very different; but that has in no way weakened the hold of the faith they express.

        Through their deep influence on Marx, Positivist ideas inspired the disastrous Soviet experiment in central economic planning. When the Soviet system collapsed, they re-emerged in the cult of the free market. It came to be believed that only American-style ‘democratic capitalism’ is truly modern, and that it is destined to spread everywhere. As it does, a universal civilization will come into being, and history will come to an end.

        Neoconservatism was the militarism needed to spread the faith, since there was a great deal of resistance by various peoples to accept the one true faith.

      • Fukuyama reminds me of the neocons in the wake of the Iraq disaster. The concept of the Iraq invasion was still sound. It was only the execution — the incompetent conduct of the war by Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney — that casused the debacle.

        Sort of like modern “liberals”: The concept of socialism is still sound, it was only the execution — the incompetence of Lenin and the incompetent ferocity of Stalin — that caused the debacle.

      • Glenn –

        Interesting that you want to paper over what distinguishes Fukuyama from his compatriots at the PNAC.

  133. David Springer

    10,000 Syrian refugees given sanctuary in the United States. Perfect. Every time one of those dune coons commits a violent crime, and you know some of them will it’s a statistical certainty, it lands straight in the lap of Barry and Hillary.

  134. Danny Thomas

    Well then. Since you didn’t vote ‘correctly’ it’s your fault Obama got re-elected.

    • David Springer

      Wrong again. Romney easily carried Texas. It was a protest vote. Do you ever get anything right, Danny?

  135. When Will Donald Drop the Ball Next?

    Take wild guesses along with the Tweetosphere!

    • Will it be before Hillary tells the next great whopper?


      • Deliberating Donald just endorsed Paul, Big Dave.

        Besides, another gaffe happened today when people were kicked out of his event for holding up copies of the Constitution.

        Thanks for playing.

        Why the sock puppet, BTW?

      • I am very much looking forward to reading the Trump Sycophant brigade explains how Trump has switched from being a brave, independent, anti-elitist, working class hero because he refused to endorse McCain and Ryan is now a brave, independent, anti-elitist, working class hero for endorsing McCain and Ryan.

      • I wanted to see what it’s like being an anonymous coward.

        Why don’t you see what it’s like not being one?

      • You’re conflating anonymity and pseudonimity again, and now you’re adding sock puppetry to your confused mess, Puppy Dave.

        Your own act is the best counterexample to the idea that real names improve the quality of blog comments.

        Chief already tried socks before you.

      • Since you are far from leading by example, Puppy Dave, I don’t think you have any other choice than to leave your case void of argument.

        I mean, come on – you can’t even respect a simple request Judy made about embedding stuff.

  136. Harold Itzkowitz ‏@HaroldItz
    “Puppies! I hate ‘em, to be very honest! They bark, they pee! Disgusting! And they’ve been so unfair to me, so unfair!” #NextTrumpGaffe

  137. Could it be… Hillary Rodham Clinton, the 45th President of the United States?

    And imagine, in 8 years she will probably be so popular a grateful American public will pick her daughter to succeed her… 24 years of Clintons in the White House.

    What a great country.

    • David Springer

      No it’ll be a Mexican’s turn for potus by then. The office is being filled by affirmative action quotas.

  138. David Springer


    A funny thing happened on the way to the hostage release. They were told they wouldn’t be released until another plane had arrived first. A plane filled with $400,000,000 in small unmarked bills. An interest payment on a 40-year old note. Not a ransom. No no no. The United States doesn’t pay ransoms to terrorist kidnappers. It makes debt payments. Write that down.

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

  139. Does belief in CAGW have anything to do with politics? Just wondering.

  140. Gotta hand it to Barry ransoming hostages from Iran on his way out the door. Way to up his game in presidential firsts.

    Just as a matter of principle is there time for a quick impeachment?


  141. http://www.vox.com/2016/8/4/12374000/trump-clinton-polls-today

    Coming up next: Our new puppet shall comment on these new poll results, then the Jim & Glenn Show will turn to more black helicopters.

    • Lying Willard,

      I’m not so sure I’d take that victory lap just yet.

      Trump is fighting a culture war as much as he is a policy war, and culture wars play out on a longer time scale than policy wars do.

      Take the Khan imbroglio, for instance. Trump gored some of the sacred cultural cows of not only the PC (politically correct) left, but the PC (patriotically correct) right as well.

      Traditionally, there has been little effort to explore the development of cultural ideas and their application to policy as a subject of legitimate inquiry in itself. However, in a 1995 book Timur Kuran seeks to develop such an analysis.

      Kuran emphasizes the importance of “public opinion” in shaping events in the world.

      Kuran begins with the observation that there are two kinds of opinion, private and public. Then, if each person considers whether to express his or her private opinion as his or her public opinion, there will be many occasions where such an action is likely to involve costs to the individual.

      Pressures of social conformity, and the fear of being labled “a fascist,” a naz1,” or a “denier,” for example, could make the public statement of an unorthodox viewpoint a cause of considerable anxiety, and in some cases a direct economic burden (as is the examples regarding her students and colleagues that Dr. Curry has cited).

      In many circumstances, the costs of expressing private opinions as public opinions — of “being honest” — are likely to exceed the costs of keeping one’s private opionions private. As a result an individual will refrain — as Kuran develops his analysis — from revealing his or her private opinion in the public arena. The overall result will be that people will commonly tell “public lies” that in fact differ considerably from their “private truths.”

      Kuran also thinks that the content of public opinion plays a major role to deciding public policy. Yet his manner of formation of public opinion suggests that it will often be difficult to change public opinion, and that unpopular governments may persist over long periods with much disliked policies, even though citizens actually want a new government (but are unwilling to say so in public).

      Kuran’s model can also help to explain why at some moments there may be surprisingly rapid shifts in public opinion and then in government policy. Once some people start to speak out, and thus private costs of being honest in public begin to fall, more people will speak out, creating further new private incentives for public truthfulness, and all in all a “virtuous circle” may ensue.

      The crucial element here is the public outspokenness in the face of conventional wisdom. Most politicians lack the courage or force of will to gore some of societies’ most sacred cows — political correctness and partriotic correctness — that are used to shield neoliberal and neoconservative policies from criticism.

      As Kuran goes on to explain, there is typically an initial strong nagative reaction to proposing an idea that is initally heretical (and bad form in public). This can persist for some time before there are rapid shifts in public opinion.

      The quesiton for Trump is how long the intial strong negative reaction will persist, and whether rapid shifts in public opinion will occur before November 8.

      Only time will tell, but one thing seems certain, and that is that Trump has pulled the finger out of the dike.

      • And whether Trump wins in November or not, bashing the cultural icons clearly gives him a great deal of pleasure.

        He’s having the time of his life.

      • ==> He’s having the time of his life. ==>

        Even though he’s being treated so unfairly. So unfairly.

        Amazing that’s he’s such a victim and yet has that fortitude to have a good time nonetheless.

      • Absolutely correct! Consider the Brexiters – many decided to keep their heads down and just vote. Who wants to be called a racist, xenophobic rube? It’s better to be called “the winner!”

      • Kuran’s model can also help to explain why at some moments there may be surprisingly rapid shifts in public opinion and then in government policy. Once some people start to speak out, and thus private costs of being honest in public begin to fall, more people will speak out, creating further new private incentives for public truthfulness, and all in all a “virtuous circle” may ensue.

        Watch how the Internet, especially “social media”, changes the rules of that game. (Or the boundary conditions of that chaotic system, to use another valid metaphor.)

      • > I’m not so sure I’d take that victory lap just yet.

        This would imply that all the polls featured in last week’s Jim & Glenn Show were part of some kind of touchdown dance, Glenn.

        Your “culture war” theory would make more sense if Duce Donald had any.

  142. From the article:

    According to Snopes Lucas was found dead on his bathroom floor.

    We contacted Lucas’ employer on 4 August 2016 to ask whether there was any truth to the rumor. According to an individual with whom we spoke at that company, Shawn Lucas died on 2 August 2016. The audibly and understandably shaken employee stated that interest in the circumstances of Lucas’ death had prompted a number of phone calls and other queries, but the company had not yet ascertained any details about Lucas’ cause of death and were unable to confirm anything more than the fact he had passed away.

    An unconfirmed report holds that Lucas was found lying on the bathroom floor by his girlfriend when she returned home on the evening of 2 August 2016. Paramedics responding to her 911 call found no signs of life.

    This follows the death of 27 year-old Democratic staffer Seth Conrad Rich who was murdered in Washington DC on July 8. The killer or killers appear to have taken nothing from their victim, leaving behind his wallet, watch and phone. Shortly after the killing, Redditors and social media users were pursuing a “lead” saying that Rich was en route to the FBI the morning of his murder, apparently intending to speak to special agents about an “ongoing court case” possibly involving the Clinton family.