Trouble in paradise

"He's lying his a-- off," Jones said about Trump's claim of saving 1,100 jobs. "That's not just my feeling. The numbers prove he's lying his a-- off. It's a damn shame when you come in and make a false statements like that."
Well. We have a union cheese in a pissing contest with the president-elect. And calling him a liar. Accusing Donald Trump of making 'false statements.'
And then Donald pretty much tells 'em if they were worth a shit at their jobs he wouldn't have to save them.


Trump has saved Jesus

It isn't true, of course, that Obama ever banned using the word 'Christmas,' but if it makes the far right fundies happy to believe that he did and that Trump has saved Jesus from the Godless libtards... well ... ignorance is in fact bliss.

It is pretty much in keeping with the far right idea that God has anointed Trump, quite literally, to serve as a sort of Cyrus III. They are perverting Isaiah Chapter 45 to 'prove' this.

They are perfectly happy with this heresy, this blasphemy.

Laurie Roth, a far, far out right-wing 'Christian' columnist, has said so.

Roth draws her theological insight from Lance Wallnau, who has written several articles on the Second Coming (abridged version).

Meanwhile, as to Obama 'banning' the use of the word 'Christmas,' take a look at this article on RightWing News:

Obama bans the word 'Christmas'

Yet in the article, we see that even these RabidRighties admit their headline is a phony; that Obama said no such thing.

Here is what they do say:

Even if it is just ‘recommended’ to military personnel to not say Christmas, that in fact acts as an order. 

Really? Apparently the Marines and the Army did not get the memo:

MCAS Cherry Point Christmas activities

Fort Carson Christmas activities

Of course, this is all due to Trump's recent election. The Marines and the Army are no longer cowering in fear ...

Never mind they've been doing this the entire eight years of the Big O's administration.


General Flynn and Dr. Strangelove

Michael Flynn’s tweet wasn’t actually about #PizzaGate, but his son is now defending the baseless conspiracy theory

As if the president-elect behaving like a refugee from the Jerry Springer show, with his incessant and downright asinine Tweets, wasn't enough ... now we have the Man Who Would Be National Security Advisor, and his chief of staff in the middle of things.

Flynn and his offspring have been active in the far right craziness for some time now.

The son of top Donald Trump adviser and retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn regularly shares conspiracy theories, expletive-filled posts, and racially insensitive sentiments on Twitter and Facebook, a CNN KFile review of his social media presence reveals.

Flynn's son, Michael G. Flynn, shared stories alleging top Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin had a connection to the Muslim Brotherhood, pushed a conspiracy theory that Sen. Marco Rubio was a closeted homosexual who abused cocaine, and repeatedly used expletives to attack Trump's political opponents.

Flynn Senior comes across like a wild-eyed whackjob out of a remake of Dr. Strangelove. Sadly, Sterling Hayden is no longer around to play Flynn in such a remake, but his original play as "General Jack D. Ripper" may well be close enough. All we have to do is substitute "Muslims" or "Islam" for Hayden's references to "Commies" and we have ... Flynn!

I'll wager Flynn could really run with this one. Maybe a rant over vaccinations rather than fluoridation would bring it up to modern speed:


That's what we have in our soon-to-be National Security Advisor.


Truth and Consequences

Here's a pretty good article. I agree with almost all of what he says. The truth of it does not alter that I thoroughly despise Trump; the man is everything his more reasoned detractors say he is, and more. Even O'Doherty, despite the truth of his commentary, does not defend Trump. Trump is merely a consequence.
Ian O'Doherty is a columnist who works for the Irish Independent. His "iSpy" column is published Monday –Thursday and contains news articles blended with comedy and shock-jock opinions. On Fridays O'Doherty publishes a rather more serious column containing his opinion on a chosen subject in "The World according to Ian O'Doherty". He was formerly with the Evening Herald.
Ian O'Doherty: A two fingers to a politically correct elite
Tuesday November 8 2016 - a day that will live in infamy or the moment when America was made great again?
The truth, as ever, will lie somewhere in the middle. After all, contrary to what both his supporters and detractors believe - and this is probably the only thing they agree on - Trump won't be able to come into office and spend his first 100 days gleefully ripping up all the bits of the Constitution he doesn't like.
But even if this week's seismic shockwave doesn't signal either the sky falling in or the start of a bright new American era, the result was, to use one of The Donald's favourite phrases, huge. It is, in fact, a total game changer.
In decades to come, historians will still bicker about the most poisonous, toxic and stupid election in living memory.
They will also be bickering over the same vexed question - how did a man who was already unpopular with the public and who boasted precisely zero political experience beat a seasoned Washington insider who was married to one extremely popular president and who had worked closely with another?
The answer, ultimately, is in the question.
History will record this as a Trump victory, which of course it is. But it was also more than that, because this was the most stunning self-inflicted defeat in the history of Western democracy.
Hillary Clinton has damned her party to irrelevance for at least the next four years. She has also ensured that Obama's legacy will now be a footnote rather than a chapter. Because the Affordable Care Act is now doomed under a Trump presidency and that was always meant to be his gift, of sorts, to America.
How did a candidate who had virtually all of the media, all of Hollywood, every celebrity you could think of, a couple of former presidents and apparently, the hopes of an entire gender resting on her shoulders, blow up her own campaign?
I rather suspect that neither Donald nor Hillary know how they got to this point.
Where she seemed to expect the position to become available to her by right - the phrase "she deserves it" was used early in the campaign and then quickly dropped when her team remembered that Americans don't like inherited power - his first steps into the campaign were those of someone chancing their arm. If he wasn't such a staunch teetotaller, many observers would have accused him of only doing it as a drunken bet.
But the more the campaign wore on, *something truly astonishing began to happen - the people began to speak. And they began to speak in a voice which, for the first time in years in the American heartland, would not be ignored.
Few of the people who voted for Trump seriously believe that he is going to personally improve their fortunes. Contrary to the smug, middle-class media narrative, they aren't all barely educated idiots.
They know what he is, of course they do. It's what he is not that appeals to them.
Clinton, on the other hand, had come to represent the apex of smug privilege. Whether it was boasting about her desire to shut down the remaining coal industry in Virginia - that worked out well for her, in the end - or calling half the electorate a "basket of deplorables", she seemed to operate in the perfumed air of the elite, more obsessed with coddling idiots and pandering to identity and feelings than improving the hardscrabble life that is the lot of millions of Americans.
Also, nobody who voted for Trump did so because they wanted him as a spiritual guru or life coach.
But plenty of people invested an irrational amount of emotional energy into a woman who was patently undeserving of that level of adoration.
That's why we've witnessed such fury from her supporters - they had wrapped themselves so tightly in the Hillary flag that a rejection of her felt like a rejection of them. And when you consider that many American colleges gave their students Wednesday off class because they were too 'upset' to study, you can see that this wasn't a battle for the White House - this became a genuine battle for America's future direction. And, indeed, for the West.
We have been going through a cultural paroxysm for the last 10 years - the rise of identity politics has created a Balkanised society where the content of someone's mind is less important than their skin colour, gender, sexuality or whatever other attention-seeking label they wish to bestow upon themselves.
In fact, where once it looked like racism and sexism might be becoming archaic remnants of a darker time, a whole new generation has popped up which wants to re-litigate all those arguments all over again.
In fact, while many of us are too young to recall the Vietnam war and the social upheaval of the 1960s, plenty of observers who were say they haven't seen an America more at war with itself than it is today.
One perfect example of this new America has been the renewed calls for segregation on campuses. Even a few years ago, such a move would have been greeted with understandable horror by civil rights activists - but this time it's the black students demanding segregation and "safe spaces" from whites. If young people calling for racial segregation from each other isn't the sign of a very, very sick society, nothing is.
The irony of Clinton calling Trump and his followers racist while she was courting Black Lives Matter was telling.
After all, no rational white person would defend the KKK, yet here was a white women defending both BLM and the New Black Panthers - explicitly racist organisations with the NBP, in particularly, openly espousing a race war if they don't get what they want.
Fundamentally, Trump was attractive because he represents a repudiation of the nonsense that has been slowly strangling the West.
He represents - rightly or wrongly, and the dust has still to settle - a scorn and contempt for these new rules. He won't be a president worried about microaggressions, or listening to the views of patently insane people just because they come from a fashionably protected group.
He also represents a glorious two fingers to everyone who has become sick of being called a racist or a bigot or a homophobe - particularly by Hillary supporters who are too dense to realise that she has always actually been more conservative on social issues than Trump.
That it might take a madman to restore some sanity to America is, I suppose, a quirk that is typical to that great nation - land of the free and home to more contradictions than anyone can imagine.
Trump's victory also signals just how out of step the media has been with the people. Not just American media, either.
In fact, the Irish media has continued its desperate drive to make a show of itself with a seemingly endless parade of emotionally *incontinent gibberish that, ironically, has increased in ferocity and hysterical spite in the last few days.
The fact that Hillary's main cheerleaders in the Irish and UK media still haven't realised where they went wrong is instructive and *amusing in equal measure. They still don't seem to understand that by constantly insulting his supporters, they're just making asses of themselves.
One female contributor to this newspaper said Trump's victory was a "sad day for women". Well, not for the women who voted for him, it wasn't.
But that really is the nub of the matter - the 'wrong' kind of women obviously voted for Trump. The 'right' kind went with Hillary. And lost.
The Irish media is not alone in being filled largely with dinner-party liberals who have never had an original or socially awkward thought in their lives. They simply assume that everyone lives in the same bubble and thinks the same thoughts - and if they don't, they should.
Of the many things that have changed with Trump's victory, the bubble has burst. Never in American history have the polls, the media and the chin-stroking moral arbiters of the liberal agenda been so spectacularly, wonderfully wrong.
It was exactly that condescending, obnoxious sneer towards the working class that brought them out in such numbers, and that is the great irony of Election 16 - the Left spent years creating identity politics to the extent that the only group left without protection or a celebrity sponsor was the white American male.
That it was the white American male who swung it for Trump is a timely reminder that while black lives matter, all votes count - even the ones of people you despise.
You don't have to be a supporter of Trump to take great delight in the sheer, apoplectic rage that has greeted his victory.
If Clinton had won and Trump supporters had gone on a rampage through a dozen American cities the next night, there would have been outrage - and rightly so.
But in a morally and linguistically inverted society, the wrong-doers are portrayed as the victims. We saw that at numerous Trump rallies - protesters would disrupt the event, claiming their right to free speech (a heckler's veto is not free speech) and provoking people until they got a dig before running to the *media and claiming victimhood.
Yet none of Clinton's rallies were shut down by her opponents (unlike Trump's aborted Chicago meeting) and the great mistake of the anti-Trump zealots should have learned was that just thinking you're right isn't enough - you need to convince others as well.
But, ultimately, this election was about people saying enough with the bullshit. This is a country in crisis, and most Americans don't care about transgender bathrooms, or safe spaces, or government speech laws. This was about people taking some control back for themselves.
It was about them saying that they won't be hectored and bullied by the toddler tantrums thrown by pissy and spoiled millennials and they certainly won't put up with being told they're stupid and wicked just because they have a difference of opinion.
But, really, this election is about hope for a better America; an America which isn't obsessed with identity and perceived 'privilege'; an American where being a victim isn't a virtue and where you don't have to apologise for not being up to date with the latest list of socially acceptable phrases.
Trump's victory was a two fingers to the politically correct.
It was a brutal rejection of the nonsense narrative which says Muslims who kill Americans are somehow victims. It took the ludicrous Green agenda and threw it out. It was a return, on some level, to a time when people weren't afraid to speak their own mind without some self-elected language cop shouting at you. Who knows, we may even see Trump kicking the UN out of New York.
Frankly, if you're one of those who gets their politics from Jon Stewart and Twitter, look away for the next four years, because you're not going to like what you see. The rest of us, however, will be delighted.
This might go terribly, terribly wrong. Nobody knows - and if we have learned anything this week, it's that nobody knows nuthin'.
But just as the people of the UK took control back with Brexit, the people of America did likewise with their choice for president.
It's called democracy.
Deal with it.


Trump, Mattis, and Patton

Mr. Trump made the announcement at a rally in Cincinnati, calling General Mattis “the closest thing we have to Gen. George Patton.”
No. Nonsense.
Politically, Patton was a loose cannon. Erratic. Given to making stupid mistakes based on emotion. Given to making important decisions based on feeding his ego. Yeah, he was a great fighting general, one of our best, no doubt about that.
But I would never support Patton for SecDef, or any other political position. Patton is a perfect example of why civilian control of the military is an absolute necessity and why generals generally should not be placed in political positions (so is MacArthur, but that's another story).
Mattis is also one of our great fighting generals, but he is an entirely different breed of cat from Patton. He strikes me as more measured, more thoughtful, more politically aware on a global scale, more politically savvy on a global scale, more aware of the limitations of use of force in consideration of the global political milieu. Capable of subtley, which Patton was not. I am sure he too has a ego; most people in those kinds of positions do, but keeps it under control. At least, more so than Patton. Mattis is also a deep thinker; Patton does not come across that way at all.
If I were Mattis, I believe I'd be a little irritated as being compared as a runner-up to Patton. I think Mattis is a much better general than Patton. Trump saying such a foolish thing simply illustrates his ignorance of the military. I guess he never got past his heel spurs.
Meanwhile, here is a pretty good article that gives some insight into Mattis' thinking:
Note that Mattis has a penchant for dealing with locals in a manner that badass flag-waving All-American SuperPatriots™ would consider 'politically correct.' It's interesting that the Marines would take such a comparatively 'soft' approach in contrast to the Army's tendency to 'kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out'.
The article seems to end abruptly. 
The last paragraph: 
Marine commanders found that their broader plan for the pacification of Anbar province would be undercut by the chronic lack of troops. Col. Toolan, commander of the 1st Marines, recalled that he had four basic missions: to control major supply routes, develop Iraqi security forces, eliminate insurgent sanctuaries and create jobs. “The challenge was, when we controlled the MSRs [main supply routes] and developed the ISF, there was no one left to eliminate sanctuaries or create jobs,” Toolan recalled. “So it was like whack-a-mole.” And so, within weeks of arriving, the Marine Corps, which had wanted to go back into Iraq to show how to work better with the people, would wind up instead involved in some of the most savage fighting U.S. troops had experienced in decades.
Why? Why the shortage of troops? An underestimation of what it would take? A failure by the administration to fund and furnish? 
Here's the book: 


Fish job

Trump’s Economic Cabinet Picks Signal Embrace of Wall St. Elite

In a campaign commercial that ran just before the election, Donald J. Trump’s voice boomed over a series of Wall Street images. He described “a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth, and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations.”

The New York Stock Exchange, the hedge fund billionaire George Soros and the chief executive of the investment bank Goldman Sachs flashed across the screen.

Now Mr. Trump has named a former Goldman executive and co-investor with Mr. Soros to spearhead his economic policy.


So far, none of the nominees who will be shaping economic policy have any significant experience in government.

No ... no experience in government. They're just the puppetmasters, heretofore behind the scenes. Now they get to run the government. Kind of letting a fox into a henhouse to oversee egg production.

I'd love to hear the rationalizations from all the Trumpkins, about this one.

So much for Trump's 'populist' leanings.

The man's a billionaire, off the sweat and labor of the working stiffs he continually stiffs ... and he is filling his cabinet and administration with more of the same.


Talking smack is easy

Republicans suddenly discover that Obamacare repeal might not be so awesome, after all

During the Obama years, congressional Republicans could rail away at the Affordable Care Act and vote endlessly to repeal it, secure in the knowledge that they would never have to deal with the consequences of repeal actually happening. 

It was great to stand up in Congress and orate. It was great to pontificate, posture, pander, and pustulate.

Now it's come time to put up or shut up.

"I’m from a state that has an expanded Medicaid population that I am very concerned about….I don’t want to throw them off into the cold, and I don’t think that’s a strategy that I want to see. It’s too many people. That’s over 200,000 people in my state. So we need a transition. I think we’ll repeal and then we’ll work during the transition period for the replacement vehicle.”

                                                      - Senator Shelley Moore Capito, WV-R

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 32 states have adopted the Medicaid expansion so far. By my count, next year there will be over 20 Republican senators in those states. (The ones that are expanding Medicaid and have one or two GOP Senators are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.)

So what's the deal? "Screw 'em all?"

Here's a pretty good article on how RealityBites the GOP right on the ass:

Senate GOP Tips Its Hand: An Obamacare Replacement Could Be A Long Way Off

Republicans' inability to coalesce around a replacement plan in the six years after Obamacare was passed means they have no easy alternative to queue up with a repeal, which they have vowed to make the top of their agenda next year. Their current inability to settle on a clear repeal and replace plan also reflects the trade-offs that have been dogging the GOP in last half-decade. Within the Republican caucus are deep, philosophical rifts over basic questions about health care policy and the government's role in providing access to coverage.

They've had six  years to come up with something. They have not. And now that they have their fearless leader ... it's time to shit or get off the pot.

I suspect constipation is running rampant throughout the red side of the aisle.

Sheriff Dave Clark redux

Here's an article from WaPo about the Trumpian mindset and how it can affect and infect law enforcement in this country:

The culture around Trump and the troubling message to police

Note that the article in large part uses Sheriff Dave Clarke as a negative example. A few posts back, we looked at what a farcial character Sheriff Dave is.

Cases involving Arpaio and his office cost taxpayers more than $142 million as of 2015, with some of those cases involving the arrest of journalists who had written about the sheriff and deaths in his jails.

He has that last bit, among other things, in common with Clarke. The Huffington Post reported Tuesday that four people, including a newborn baby, have died in Clarke’s Milwaukee County Jail since April, prompting a visit from a court-appointed medical monitor. 


If Clarke doesn’t get the top job at Homeland Security, that may be relief of a kind. But in Clarke, Trump would continue to have an outside validator, affirming his positions to millions of cable news viewers and projecting his vision of tough guy justice with a salute and a tip of his cowboy hat. If Clarke is tapped for the gig, a man who plays a sheriff on TV but has apparently failed to keep his own local jail in order will be handed massive authority over an expansive security apparatus.

Things are not well in many ways, in policing in America. Clarke is a fine example of this.

The first amendment

There has been a lot of talk bandied about lately, about 'freedom of speech' and how we have the right to pretty much say whatever want, whenever we want.

This seems to be particularly true when it comes to defending the right of any Tom, Dick, or Harriet to post whatever he or she wants on social media, particularly FaceBook.

And woe unto anyone who challenges that 'free expression.' Any disagreement is seen as an 'attack' on the original poster.

It doesn't work that way.

First, there is not an absolute right to say whatever you want, whenever you want. The tried and true example of that is the person who screams 'Fire!' in a crowded theater, when there is no fire. Another example is making comments about killing the president. If you don't think so, try it, and let's see how long it takes for the Secret Service to show up and give you a civics lesson.

Second, 'freedom of speech' is a double-edged sword.

Yes, you can post almost anything you want ... but when you do, don't get yourself into a hissy fit when someone else takes you to task for it. If you can express your views, using 'freedom of speech' as your cover ... so can everyone else. This is especially true when FB buddies post links to all the false 'news' stories that are swamping social media like sewage from a stopped up septic tank. People post the most outrageous nonsense, which then floods everyone else's (on the 'buddy list') timelines. Then you have a few choices. Ignore it, which can be construed to mean agreement; block that particular person's posts on your timeline; unfriend that person, often taken as a virtual slap across the chops; respond to it with a counterargument. On that last, it makes no difference if you offer a reasoned disagreement or a witless insult; the original poster will see it as a personal attack.

Trump is discovering that 'doubled-edged' sword aspect. He gets his panties in a wad every time the New York Times, WaPo, or CNN post an article he doesn't like. He has actually gone so far as to threaten to use the power of the presidency to retaliate.

“With me, they’re not protected, because I’m not like other people...We’re gonna...have people sue you like you never get sued before.”

I believe our president-elect could use a civics lesson himself.

Trump, and other elected officials, offer windows into their minds and mindset with their public scribblings. They can do that. It's their right to do so.

It is also the right of We the People to comment, quite freely, as to what we think about the mindsets exposed by those public scribblings. Sometimes, quite often, in fact, it may not be flattering or complementary.

In the cerebral toxic dump that is FaceBook. disagreement rapidly descends to what I call 'Jerry Springer' levels. No smarts, no reasoned discussion, no brains at all. Ignorant screamfests and name-calling.

The proper term for this is "ad hominem attack."

That means that rather than attacking the idea, the person is attacked.

"You're an idiot."

"You are pro-choice. You must be a stupid libtard."

"You support gay marriage. You must be a faggot."

That sort of thing.

Here is a website that lists all the types of fallacious arguments:

The Nizkor Project: Fallacies

Proof of the Trumpian genius!

Liz Peek, of FauxNews Opinion, is gushing over the Carrier 'deal.' She offers it up as proof of Trump's genius, in Making America Great Again!

Carrier deal is proof that Trump is already making America great again

Get a grip, Liz.

This is proof of nothing, other than Trumpian backroom dealing. This 'deal' is in Indiana. Isn't that Pence's home state? Does anyone else smell a backroom political quid pro quo? Let's see how Cyrus II and his henchmen do in other states.

'Incentives' = 'subsidies' of one kind or another. Where are those coming from? Out of the taxpayers' pockets.

Here is a reasonably decent article on pros and cons of 'incentives.'

Incentives for Business Attraction and Retention

The academic literature is divided on the appropriateness of incentives. However, most research tends to show that these divisions are based largely on differences in theoretical perspective, the research method, and the time perspective (short term vs. long term). Studies appear to agree on three key points:

  1. With few exceptions, incentives will not effectively influence firm location decisions.

  2. The truly important factors in business location decisions are transportation considerations, labor quality, and markets

  3. The best way for government to influence firm location is to create and sustain quality communities.

Update12.01.2016: Hold on there, Batman! Hundreds could still lose their jobs!

And another update: How Donald Trump got Carrier to stay

That one is pretty good.

But experts say the state incentives are more likely window dressing.
Most research indicates that economic development incentives rarely change a firm's behavior, according to Nathan Jensen, a professor at the University of Texas. "They are a subsidy to a company with little value to society. Our research shows that offering incentives is a great way for politicians to take credit, or minimize blame, for company decisions."

That's right in keeping with the ICMA article, above.

So Carrier comes out with $7 million in 'incentives' over ten years, contrasted against the $65 million the company claims it would have saved each year by moving to Mexico.

So, as they say ... "Where's the beef?"

How about here:

It's not yet clear how much of the company's decision was based on concerns about maintaining the significant amount of business it does with the government.

Carrier parent United Technologies (UTX) is a major defense contractor, with $5.6 billion in revenue from federal government contracts, or 10% of its total revenue. The government also pays for $1.5 billion of its research and development costs.

So Trump and Pence look good; Carrier hangs on to those billions in contracts and the gummint paying its R&D costs ... and the taxpayers get soaked $7 million. Well, it's over ten years, so what the hey.


The man just ain't wrapped too tight ...

Check this:

Trump attacks CNN over reportage on 'voter fraud.'

Shortly after 9 p.m., Trump began retweeting supporters who had criticized CNN's Jeff Zeleny because he accurately reported that there was no evidence -- nor has the transition team provided any-- to support Trump's claim that millions of fraudulent votes had been cast for Hillary Clinton.

"[W]hat PROOF do u have DonaldTrump did not suffer from millions of FRAUD votes? Journalist? Do your job!" read the first post that Trump retweeted. "Just another generic CNN part time wannabe journalist!," read the second.

"@CNN still doesn't get it," Trump added. "They will never learn!"

And of course, the multitudes of Trumpkins are eating this up. Clearly, CNN is at fault ... while Trump, who has offered no proof of voter fraud that cost him 'millions' of votes ... is just being picked on by the liberal media.

Finally, Trump issued his own attack on CNN: ".@CNN is so embarrassed by their total (100%) support of Hillary Clinton, and yet her loss in a landslide, that they don't know what to do," he wrote.

He continued the attack in a tweet just after 6:30 a.m. Tuesday: "I thought that @CNN would get better after they failed so badly in their support of Hillary Clinton however, since election, they are worse!"

Doesn't Trump have some prepping to do for assuming control of the government? Or is this juvenile nonsense all we can expect for the next four years?

"Dangerous Dave"

So ... Cyrus III is now considering retired general David "Dangerous Dave" Petraeus for the SecState position.

Petraeus was the subject of an FBI investigation, one that eventually led to his resignation as Director of the CIA.

The investigation revealed that Petraeus had mishandled classified documents; his squeeze, Paula Broadwell, had a pile of classified data on her computers. She wasn't authorized to have this data. The FBI also removed classified documents from her house in Charlotte, NC.

OK, so we have Petraeus (also known as "Peaches") having an affair with Broadwell, using webmail services under false names to swap virtual spit, as well as info about significant military personnel (generals directly involved in the GWOT).

And the mishandling of classified documents. Did we mention that?

And so, despite all the Outrage!™ over the Clintonista email scandal and mishandling of classified documents ... Trump is considering for SecState a guy who can't keep his pants zipped, who pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges based on mishandling of classified information ... and who resigned in disgrace from a highly sensitive high level position with the government (Director of the CIA).

Can we all say "Business as usual." But Trump has an explanation for that.

On the campaign trail, Trump played down the significance of Petraeus's conviction, repeatedly arguing that it was "a fraction" of what Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton had gotten away with by using a personal email server as secretary of state.

Which leaves a couple of questions/observations.

Is it really just a matter of 'what you can get away with?' If so ... business as usual.

If "Peaches" Petraeus took a misdemeanor plea with 2 years probation and a $100,000 fine ... for a 'fraction' of what Hillary did ... why is Trump so willing to give her a bye?

Oh ... we also, as we speak, have an ongoing investigation by DoD into leaks of Paula Broadwell's personal information. 

Business as usual.


Kaepernick Redux

OK, so when Kaepernick decided to 'express' his views on the state on the nation by taking a knee during the national anthem, we here at Blogger Central went along with that. We still do.

It's not a particularly good form of protest - kind of like burning flags -  as it's not very likely to bring many Americans around to the point in point, but it's his right to protest in that manner.

And, Kaepernick's concerns about the state of policing in this country are in many ways quite valid. His alignment with 'Black Lives Matter' wasn't very bright, as BLM has arguably been co-opted by the cop-hating fringe. But, policing in this country is in need of some adult supervision in many quarters. The usual response to that statement is to go on about the hundreds of thousands of cops who serve the public in honorable manner every day. But the truth of that does not negate the need for change, and when it is tossed out as a countermeasure to the likes of Kaepernick's baseline concerns, it just obfuscates the underlying problem.

As one black columnist said ... "I can grieve for an officer who gave his life, while at the same time hold great concerns for the way policing is being done."

But here's the deal. Kaepernick's original position was that he was protesting 'oppression' and 'unfairness' in this country.


So why is he sticking up for Fidel Castro, who became one of the most vicious, murdering dictators of our time?

He claims that he was misunderstood, that his comments were taken out of context, that the t-shirt he wore, bearing the images of both Malcom X and Castro was more a show of support for Malcom X than Castro.

It rings false. Almando Salguero kicks Kaepernick around the field a few times in his article.

Colin ... dude ... you really screwed the pooch on this one. Let's not be talking about police oppression here, while heaping praise upon the likes of Fidel Castro. That's called 'hypocrisy.' We have enough of that going around already just in the current political scene; we don't need it as sports fans too.

Why not just wear a Che shirt, and be done with the tap-dancing?

Voter fraud exposed!

Here it is, sports fans! Voter fraud, finally exposed!

We've known that voter fraud exists, in rampant form, because, well ... all those FaceBook posts, and clickbait in the FB sidebars. Yep.

But now, we have irrefutable proof of it!

Cyrus II ... uh ... Trump ... says so.

Trump falsely claims 'millions of people who voted illegally' cost him popular vote

President-elect Donald Trump alleged Sunday, without evidence, that "millions of people" voted illegally for Hillary Clinton and otherwise he would have won the popular vote. It's an unprecedented allegation by a president-elect.

Of course, that particular story is from the Clinton News Network, so you can discount that 'falsely' thing in the headline. And that business 'without evidence,' as well. Since Trump has been anointed by God, mere temporal or secular 'evidence' is not necessary. God is on Trump's side.

Then the Godless liberal rag, the heretofore 'failing' New  York Times, chimes in with more falsehoods:

Trump Claims, With No Evidence, That ‘Millions of People’ Voted Illegally

President-elect Donald J. Trump said on Sunday that he had fallen short in the popular vote in the general election only because millions of people had voted illegally, leveling the baseless claim as part of a daylong storm of Twitter posts voicing anger about a three-state recount push.

Though we must confess to some confusion ... Cyrus II ... Trump ... Twitted repeatedly that the NYT was 'failing' and was full of lies, mostly about him. But then he said  "...I just appreciate the meeting and I have great respect for The New York Times. Tremendous respect. It’s very special. Always has been very special." So we here at Blogger Central confess to some confusion. Yes.

Confusion over that Mitt Romney thing, too. Will Mitt apologize? Is he willing to grovel that much, for a job? New York Magazine has a nice one pre-written for him.

And Kelly Ann is in the deep kimchee over her continued pummeling of Mitt. She apparently didn't get the memo on that. Or is all that just for show.

But we were on voter fraud.

Exposed. Yes. The Truth has been Revealed by our modern-day Cyrus.

But wait ... even Breitbart says our modern Cyrus' claims are unfounded:

Trump claims ‘serious’ fraud, says millions voted illegally

 President-elect Donald Trump made unsubstantiated claims of serious US voter fraud and said “millions of people” had cast their ballots illegally, offering no evidence for the assertions he put forth on Twitter.

Is it possible that our president-elect, the Twitterer-in-Chief ... has finally gone over the edge? Even with his own supporters?


Trump: Anointed by God

It's all right there in Isaiah 45. See, Trump is the 45th president. Or will be. You see the link? Isaiah 45 and Cyrus? 45th president? Get it? Get it?

"Many people are saying" that God has anointed Trump.

Is Lance Wallnau's Prophecy True? Is Trump God's Anointed Man to Lead the Free World?

Note that this only applies to 'the Free World.'  We have to ask. Is that because God doesn't give a shit about the rest of humanity?

Then we have Laurie Roth, famed Christian conservative spokesperson:

God will have mercy on America and make her God's light on a hill again

Laurie has 'investigated' and knows this to be true, as the result of her 'investigation.'

According to my investigation several have been awakened and given visions and words from God as to who would become President. They were all told that Donald Trump was God’s anointed choice for President.

Sadly, Laurie does not share with us the names of those who have been 'awakened' and confided in by God.

Then we have none less than Phil Robertson exhorting the faithful of the Family Research Council to get God on their side, if only he can baptize Donald Trump:

On the other hand, here is a fellow who sees a somewhat different political picture:

Donald Trump Is God’s Anointed

Sheriff Dave Clarke

This guy is pretty good at sound bites. But whatever 'sensible' views he may have, the value is lost in his stridency and in his juvenile attacks, name-calling, and conspiratorial rhetoric. He's a fellow who is 60 going on 12 ... pretty good at name-calling, but short on substance.But the Trumpkins and the far right just eat up his Obama- and Clinton-bashing ... it's working for him; some sources say he's jockeying for a White House job. If you have to sell your soul, Dave, might as well hold out for a West Winger.

Meanwhile ... I think ol' Shurf Dave has Obama confused with the Clinton Crime Syndicate. So far, Obama has done nothing, nothing at all, that lends any truth to Shurf Dave's juvenile rant.

Look at Shurf Dave's qualities as high sheriff ... tell me, Dave, how's that Terrill Thomas thing working out for you? Got any tips on inmate management for the Denver Sheriff's Department? Then there is the death of infant Swayzer in Dave's jail; the death of Kristina Fiebrink in Dave's jail; the death of Michael J. Madden in Dave's jail. Four inmate deaths within 6 months. Maybe Shurf Dave should spend more time on sheriff business than in pimping his own political future at the White House.

 He comes across as just another sheriff much too full of himself, feeding his own ego, playing to the mob. There's no lack of those guys. Look at the scandals involving Lee Baca and his henchmen in LASD; Terry Maketa here in Colorado; our own Sedgewick County sheriff being arrested; Denver County's on-going stench in the Sheriff's Office; Patrick Sullivan a few years back; the St Croix County sex scandals. There's no lack of these guys stepping all over their peckers, often because they can't keep their pants zipped. Clarke - particularly after he had his ass handed to him in Milwaukee Deputy Sheriffs’ Association v. Clarke - comes across as just another one of many, much too full of himself .

But he orates just like his buddy Trump ... lots of inflammatory rhetoric, and an uncomfortable relationship with the truth. Yep. Good pick for the West Wing.


Malkin's Safety Pin Rant

Michelle Malkin, who is only marginally less unbalanced than, say, Ann Coulter, has actually almost written a good piece here. Though 'the slacker' mandate really lights up the 'conservative' pinball machine, Malkin doesn't get that that is not the real drain on Obamacare and We the Taxpayers.

The Slacker Mandate and the Safety-Pin Generation

Not only does Malkin not get it, but neither does Trump. Trump wants to leave in these Obamacare items that cost money. That means that someone has to pay for it, somewhere, sometime. But it isn't 'till 26' crowd that is the big drain. It's the pre-existing conditions, which the insurers must take, without drawing funding from a separate source, or without billing separately. These people burden the program with high costs ... and everyone gets a rate increase to pay for it. The master plan was that Obamacare was going to pay for those higher, driven-by-pre-existing-condition costs by broadening the pool of the insured - either by forcing the purchase of a plan, or by paying the fine ... uh ... tax. The tax is too low and people aren't buying and the pre-existing sick are driving up costs for everyone. Trump doesn't want to drop the pre-existing coverage, but someone has to pay, and guess who that is?

Malkin is banging away on 'the slacker' option because it's an easy target. It's easy to take cheap shots at a poorly defined group of 'millennials' especially when they make themselves into such easy targets. Old gasbag 'conservatives' always like to beat up on the younger generation, so Malkin is just telling them what they want to hear. But Malkin, like so many other self-righteous 'conservatives,' ignores that a great many of those 'millennials' are really not all that self-centered, self-absorbed, and generally useless leeches upon society.

US Marine Corps
US Army
US Air Force
US Navy
US Coast Guard

for starters. Fifty years ago, 'conservatives' were bitching about hippies and how the country was going to hell in a handbasket. Some things change, others do not.

She needs to find a better target.

The Child who will be president

Trump continues his childish Twitter bashfest against the New York Times. This time, it's over the Grey Lady's article on the confused state of the Trumpian Transition Team.

Trump attacks 'fools' at New York Times

Trump tirade re-ignites

And ... a related opinion piece from Wapo.

This time may be different. Trump was not a normal candidate, the transition is not a normal transition, and this will probably not be a normal administration. The president-elect is surrounding himself with mediocrities whose chief qualification seems to be unquestioning loyalty. He gets credit for becoming a statesman when he says something any newly elected president might say (“I very much look forward to dealing with the president in the future”) — and then reverts to tweeting against demonstrators and the New York Times. By all accounts, his ignorance, and that of his entourage, about the executive branch is fathomless. It’s not even clear that he accepts that he should live in the White House rather than in his gilt-smeared penthouse in New York.


We have a child about to enter the Oval Office. A mediocre, ignorant child, surrounded by sycophantic mediocrities.

National Security: A Trumpian Priority

An early rolling of heads, as the Trump Team comes to grip with vital matters of national security.At first, it appeared that Christie and some of his henchmen were simply tossed aside as political expedients, a bit of political fecal-splashing over BridgeGate:

Christie’s former deputy chief of staff was convicted in federal court earlier this month along with another New Jersey transportation official for causing dangerous traffic tie-ups in September 2013 as political payback for a local official who did not endorse Christie. 

But it was more than that.

One of those loyalists who appears to have been thrown overboard with Christie is former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers. On Tuesday, he issued a statement that he was stepping down from the transition team, with speculation quickly arising that he was pushed out. Rogers, who was listed as the head of the national security transition team on an organizational chart obtained by Defense News, was seen in the intelligence community as a potentially stabilizing force on a Trump administration and was viewed as a likely nominee for a top post, perhaps CIA director. 

Mike Rogers didn't just 'step down;' he was part of the latest Trumpian "Nacht der langen Messer."

"A former U.S. official with ties to the Trump team described the ousters of Rogers and others as a “bloodletting of anybody that associated in any way on the transition with Christie,” and said that the departures were engineered by two Trump loyalists who have taken control of who will get national security posts in the administration: retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn and Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

Rogers had no prior significant ties to Christie but had been recruited to join the Trump team as an adviser by the former New Jersey governor. At least three other Christie associates were also pushed aside, former officials said, apparently in retaliation for Christie’s role as a U.S. prosecutor in sending Kushner’s father to prison."

So ... the Trumpian transition team isn't stalled, dead for the moment in the water, because of the taint of BridgeGate. It is connected to Christie, but not because of that. Nope. It seems that back when Christie was a federal prosecutor, he did his job a little too well for the tastes of Jared Kushner, one of the Trumpian geniuses calling America's shots these days. Kushner's old man was a tax fraud; is a tax fraud, and Christie nailed his ass in court and got him sent off to prison. 

In the summer of 2004 Kushner was fined $508,900 by the Federal Election Commission for mishandling of campaign contributions. In 2005, following an investigation by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey, Kushner was convicted of making illegal campaign contributions, tax evasion and witness tampering. The U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, Chris Christie, negotiated a plea agreement and Kushner was sentenced to two years in prison and released after one year. As a result of his convictions, Kushner was suspended and disbarred from the practice of law in New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania.

Can't have that, doncher know. Bad form.

So the national security and national defense transition is stalled, dead in the water ... because Trump's son-in-law, a spoiled rich kid, is having a temper tantrum over his thieving daddy getting himself sent to prison.

Thank God we don't have that crook, Hillary, to deal with, and have such honest, upright, 
straightforward leadership coming down the pike. With, like, you know ... all those GOP 'values.'

Trump transition hitting early hurdles

Jared Kushner at center of Trump transition in-fighting


Donald Buck-pedals some more

Trump continues to Buck-pedal and waffle: no Clinton prosecution. In fact ... she's 'good people.'

"She did some bad things, I mean she did some bad things," Trump said, to which Stahl responded, "I know, but a special prosecutor?"

"I don't want to hurt them, I don't want to hurt them," Trump said. "They’re, they’re good people. I don't want to hurt them."

In addition to Buck-pedaling like a contestant in the Tour de Frog ... once again, he demonstrates that he is inarticulate, unable to string together coherent sentences to frame a coherent thought.