The Commander-In-Chief Forum

September 9, 2016

The general takeaway from the Commander-In-Chief forum was that Trump didn't have detailed national defense plans and that Hillary does have detailed defense plans that unfortunately are proven losers. For instance, there was her vow that she would defeat ISIS but she would never again commit ground troops to Iraq or Syria (news flash: we currently have nearly 5,000 troops in Iraq and 300 Special Forces in Syria.) That was a reminder that she intends to continue Obama’s “strategy” for defeating ISIS, even the suicidal tactic of telling the enemy right up front exactly what we intend to do and when we’ll quit doing it and leave. As Dr. Phil might say, how is that workin’ for us?

Stephen Green at PJMedia.com dug into history to compare Obama’s results in fighting our #1 enemy to those of a previous Democratic President. Here’s what he found:

“It’s been about 32 months since President Obama dismissed ISIS as the ‘jayvee.’ 32 months after Pearl Harbor, most of Italy was in Allied hands, the breakout from Normandy was about to begin, Saipan had been secured by US Marines, and the Japanese Navy had been decisively defeated in the ‘Great Marianas Turkey Shoot.’”

And remember, that was in a multi-front world war, starting from Pearl Harbor, where the US Navy suffered a devastating attack and America’s war machine had to be rebuilt from scratch -- not the modern US military against a handful of scruffy jihadists.

I wonder if FDR would have been as successful in fighting the Axis Powers if he’d used his weekly Fireside Chats to announce how many troops we would be committing to D-Day, and the exact time and location where they would be landing?

Read more here: https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/243287/

Friday News Roundup

September 9, 2016

FBI Director James Comey reacted this week to the widespread criticism of his decision to bend the law to let Hillary Clinton off the hook by sending a memo to staffers (many of whom are rumored to be furious at having the FBI’s reputation for unbiased law enforcement trashed). In it, Comey doubled-down on his decision not to recommend indictment for Clinton for mishandling classified information, insisting that it wasn’t even difficult. If he’d instead called it a “no-brainer,” that might at least be defensible.

But this story may not be over yet. The latest release of FBI notes and emails has made it clear that there is another potential, very serious charge lurking out there like the shark from “Jaws.” It’s the same charge that brought down the Nixon White House: obstruction of justice. In this case, the deliberate destruction of evidence (Hillary’s emails) using BleachBit digital deletion software, after it was placed under subpoena and ordered to be preserved.

US Army Reserve Colonel and University of Texas Professor Austin Bay has an article at Observer.com that lays out the ironclad obstruction case step-by-step with a very clear timeline. Take a look and see if you think it would be an easy decision for an FBI Director to ignore all that. Bay concludes by calling on Comey to schedule another press conference to admit he erred in July and to recommend that the DOJ proceed with indictments for three reasons: to reassert that all lawbreakers should be treated equally, to re-establish the FBI’s tarnished reputation, and to provide justice for the four Americans who died in Benghazi. Bay says if Comey refuses to do that, then he should resign.

Sadly, anyone who understands Washington won’t place any hopes or bets on that happening. Obstructing justice used to be a felony. These days, it’s so common, even the Justice Department does it.

http://observer.com/2016/09/dont-let-comey-put-a-criminal-in-the-white-house/

-------------

It’s always fun during election season to see how candidates react when confronted with questions about their negatives that are indisputably true. For instance, if Trump is slammed for not having a detailed plan to deal with some issue or other, he simply says that his plan is to put the best people together to craft a plan, then he tells us how great that plan will be (by the way, it’s always baffled me why pundits put so much importance on a candidate’s detailed “plans” when they know those plans will have to pass Congress, where all the details will be changed anyway). Or when Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson didn’t recognize the Syrian refugee center of Aleppo, he reacted by simply admitting he had a brain glitch. Pundits declared his campaign mortally wounded, but didn’t specify whether that was because he failed to recognize Aleppo or he was just too honest for politics.

By contrast, Hillary Clinton has more skeletons in the closet than the Chicago Morgue. Not to mention all the failures of Obama policies that she’s vowing to continue (ISIS) or even double-down on (Obamacare). And resorting to honesty is never her first instinct. So I’ve noticed that she’s developed a one-size-fits-all response to an attack: turn it around and accuse the accuser of being unpatriotic for even bringing it up. For instance, if Trump criticizes the weakened state of the military under Obama, he’s insulting America’s troops. If he criticizes Obama for not listening to his generals, he’s attacking our heroic generals as weak and ineffective. If he says he wants to reverse Obama's policies and “make America great again” (something Bill Clinton said Hillary would do in a 2008 campaign ad), then he’s badmouthing America by suggesting it’s not great now.

It remains to be seen whether this strategy will work, but it did seem awfully familiar. Then I remembered where I’d seen it before. I think this might be a clip of Hillary’s campaign strategist during his college days:

https://youtu.be/ROxvT8KKdFw?t=1m18s

-------------

Since a lot of people this week are talking about the risks of vote fraud through electronic voting machines, it’s worth noting that a newly-released internal email from George Soros’ laughably-named “Open Society Foundations” shows that they held a meeting two years ago to discuss ways that Obama could bypass Congress and promote online voting, probably the worst idea since texting while driving. Predictably, the Obama Administration later proposed exactly those Soros-approved idea for voting via table computer, dismissing objections that online voting could be tampered with by hackers.

Irony alert: we know about the Soros minions’ avid pursuit of online voting because the email was leaked to Breitbart.com by someone who apparently hacked into their computer system and stole it.

http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2016/09/09/leaked-memo-george-soros-foundation-seeking-expand-u-s-online-voting/

--------------

“Dilbert” cartoonist Scott Adams is also an economics MBA, master hypnotist and longtime student of persuasion techniques. His blog posts on the election campaign have become hugely popular for his unique perspective that emphasizes the candidates' psychological manipulation and persuasion tactics over politics (although they’ve cost him a lot of fans and garnered death threats because he predicted Trump would win in a landslide)

This particular post is a must-read for anyone who wonders why Democrats all suddenly started using the word “dark” when talking about Trump, and how they convinced so many people that he’s a scary, racist bogeyman when nobody who actually knows him has ever seen any evidence of that. It also has some good insights into how Trump’s political tactics mirror his business negotiation tactics from “The Art of the Deal,” and are either totally misunderstood or deliberately misrepresented by the media and his political opponents.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/149983115751/why-trump-doesnt-scare-me

Donald Trump gave a major speech today on his plans for rebuilding the US military, after eight years of Obama stretching it, depleting it and using it as a laboratory for social justice experiments. Here is a link to watch the entire speech:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-watch-live-donald-trump-lays-out-his-1473260499-htmlstory.html

-------------

And if you’re pressed for time, here is a good summation of his points:

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/09/07/trump-unveils-plan-to-boost-military-with-more-troops-weapons.html

-----------------

For many Americans, the idea of smug, rich Hollywood liberals freaking out over them supporting Trump isn’t a bug, it’s a feature. They’re tired of being lectured to by celebrities who think that having good looks and some show business talent somehow imparts to them a superior knowledge of government policy. Perhaps the most telling quote in the piece is the Democratic fundraiser’s desperately hopeful claim that “fundraising is a kind of voting. If someone is raising a ton of money, it’s a sign of enthusiasm.”

If someone is raising a ton of money in $25 or $50 increments, that’s a sign of enthusiasm. If someone is shunning working Americans to hold fundraisers that the Hollywood and Wall Street elite fork over $250,000 to attend, that’s not a sign of enthusiasm, it’s a sign that the candidate is for sale to the highest bidder.

http://www.thewrap.com/hollywood-democrats-nervous-as-clinton-trump-polls-tighten-im-freaked-out/

The other day, I poked a little fun at the press with their mindless softball questions for Hillary Clinton by linking to a video of Homer Simpson. Well, I take it all back. Homer would be insulted if I compared his interview skills to the questions asked of Hillary on her plane as cited in this article. Whatever these hard-hitting reporters are being paid, it’s too much “D’oh!” Apparently, they wrote these questions on an orange because a softball just wasn't soft enough.

http://ijr.com/2016/09/689120-media-passing-an-orange-with-message-on-it-to-hillary-shows-theyre-really-asking-her-hard-questions/

-------------------

Here’s an example of the rare “Double Gotcha,” where candidates are blindsided with questions that require them to know the names of any people or places on Earth that they might have to deal with, but their critics don't know them, either. Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson was asked about Aleppo, the Syrian city that’s the center of the refugee crisis, and admitted he didn’t know what Aleppo is. It sparked widespread jokes that Johnson might have been using some of the marijuana that Libertarians want to legalize. But then, in reporting on Johnson’s ignorant, embarrassing, possibly disqualifying faux pas, the New York Times misidentified Aleppo as the de facto capital of ISIS (that’s the city of Raqqa).

I wouldn't feel too bad if I were them. Judging from the current Administration’s adroit handling of Syria, I wouldn’t be surprised to find that whoever is in charge of our Syria policy thinks Aleppo is either a brand of dog food or a forgotten Marx Brother.

http://ijr.com/the-political-edit/2016/09/689591-what-is-the-what-is-aleppo-controversy/

Conservative News Roundup

September 7, 2016

Donald Trump announced that he’s ending his “blacklist” and will once again give media credentials for his rallies and events to hostile outlets such as the Huffington Post, Politico and Buzzfeed. Trump had called their coverage of him “not nice,” “dishonest” and “disgusting,” but he’s letting them back in anyway. His reasoning: “I figure they can’t treat me any worse!”

That’s awfully sporting of him, but with the current political media, for whom “objectivity” isn’t even in their spellcheck dictionary, I wouldn’t bet the farm that they can’t treat him any worse.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3778026/I-figure-t-treat-worse-Trump-ending-media-blacklist-denying-credentials-reporters-favor-publications.html

------------

On a similar subject, here’s video of another African-American man praising Donald Trump for his seriousness and commitment to “reaching out and being inclusive” to the minority community. Except this was prominent Clinton supporter/Trump denouncer, Jesse Jackson, introducing Trump at a Rainbow PUSH Wall Street Project event in 1999. This bolsters the claim by a longtime entertainment reporter whose job was to dig up dirt on Trump and other celebrities that nobody ever heard any accusations of racism against Trump until the day he announced he was running for President as a Republican.

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/09/05/flashback-rev-jesse-jackson-praises-trump-reaching-inclusive/

-----------------

For many Americans, the idea of smug, rich Hollywood liberals freaking out over them supporting Trump isn’t a bug, it’s a feature. They’re tired of being lectured to by celebrities who think that having good looks and some show business talent somehow imparts to them a superior knowledge of government policy. Perhaps the most telling quote in the piece is the Democratic fundraiser’s desperately hopeful claim that “fundraising is a kind of voting. If someone is raising a ton of money, it’s a sign of enthusiasm.”

If someone is raising a ton of money in $25 or $50 increments, that’s a sign of enthusiasm. If someone is shunning working Americans to hold fundraisers that the Hollywood and Wall Street elite fork over $250,000 to attend, that’s not a sign of enthusiasm, it’s a sign that the candidate is for sale to the highest bidder.

http://www.thewrap.com/hollywood-democrats-nervous-as-clinton-trump-polls-tighten-im-freaked-out/