Monday, December 19, 2016

Life Without Hope



Vincent J. Curtis

19 Dec 2016


Could anyone be more hopeless than Michelle Obama?  Could anyone be more out of touch than Michelle Obama?  I mean, other than those Hollywood celebrities calling on Trump Electors to be faithless – as an act of conscience and patriotism!

Today, an Oprah Winfrey show is going to have Michelle Obama tell Oprah that the current mood of America is what “not having hope feels like.”  She then amplifies her statement by saying something about hope being necessary and some such, a quality of statement that belies the education she received at Princeton and Harvard.

In 2008, after the Democrat party had nominated husband Barack at its presidential nominee, she famously said that this was the first time in her life she felt proud of her country.  She meant that for the first time in her life, that racist chip on her shoulder slipped off.  Soon enough she replaced it, however, because the racist ambush is about the only method of argument she has confidence in delivering.

Michelle has lived a life of cosseted privilege.  In 2006, her salary was $273,618 from the University of Chicago Hospitals, while her husband had a salary of $157,082 from the United States Senate. The Obamas' total income, however, was $991,296, which included $51,200 she earned as a member of the board of directors of TreeHouse Foods, and investments and royalties from his books.

Advancements through her career are mysterious for a person without connections and of modest attainments.

In 1996, at the age of 32, Michelle served as the Associate Dean of Student Services at the University of Chicago.  In 2002, she began working for the University of Chicago Hospitals, first as executive director for community affairs and, beginning May 2005, as Vice President for Community and External Affairs.  Note the dates and the status of husband Barack’s career at the same time.

In 1991, at the age of 27, she worked in the Chicago city government as an Assistant to the Mayor and as Assistant Commissioner of Planning and Development. In 1993, she became Executive Director for the Chicago office of Public Allies, a non-profit organization encouraging young people to work on social issues in nonprofit groups and government agencies.

In 1981, she entered Princeton University.  Her graduation thesis was entitled Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community.  Part of her research consisted in sending a questionnaire to African American graduates, requesting they specify when and how comfortable they were with their race prior to their enrollment at Princeton and how they felt about it when they were a student and since then. Of the 400 alumni sent the survey, “fewer than 90 responded, and the findings did not support her hope that the black alumni would still identity with the African American community, even though they had attended an elite university with all of the advantages that accrues to its graduates."  She majored in sociology and minored in African American studies, graduating cum laude with a Bachelor of Arts in 1985.

Obviously, race consciousness and feelings have been central to Michelle’s thinking since college days.  A voluntary survey of 400 to which fewer than 90 responded does not provide scientific results.  The purpose of the survey was to test a thesis, not a hope; and you would not be wrong to rub your eyes at what the thesis was: that blacks still identify as “blacks” despite being Princeton graduates and having the advantages of an Ivy League education.  Nevertheless, Michelle graduated, and was admitted to Harvard Law School.

Michelle earned a J.D. (Juris Doctor – a fancy name for a lawyer with another university degree) from Harvard in 1988.  It was at Harvard that Michelle allegedly concluded that she could be “both brilliant and black,” according to her faculty mentor Charles Ogletree.

She graduated from Harvard Law and landed a job at the law firm Sidley Austin, LLP, where she met Barack.  They were married in 1992.

Michelle Obama got into Princeton with a lot less than non-minority students, and I’m guessing that it was on full, or nearly full, scholarship.  She takes a bird course, does a half-assed thesis, and they give her a degree and send her out the door; and Princeton gets credit for graduating a black female.

On the strength of a mere cum laude sociology degree, Michelle lands a spot at Harvard Law, but don’t think for a moment that being black and being female had anything to do with her admission.  No more so that being female and being 1/32 Cherokee had anything to do with Harvard Law hiring Elizabeth Warren.

Anyhow, after barely three years in practicing law, she is already working for government in the city of Chicago doing those non-technical soft things – Assistant to the Mayor, Assistant to someone else.  Within five years of graduating Harvard Law, she placed her law license into voluntary suspension, and is wife of up and coming Barack Obama, another story of modest attainments being inflated to epic proportions for reasons of race.

If it weren’t for prevalence of race-guilt in America, a person of Michelle Obama’s talents would never have made it to Princeton and Harvard Law.  She has benefitted personally to a degree she cannot imagine on account of the fact that she is a black female who is culturally a step above a ghetto-mama.

She sees the race guilt of America everywhere she looks, and her comment about the America of Donald Trump being a place without hope reflects her view from the bubble of privilege she has lived in her entire adult life.  It chokes people more talented and less lucky than she has been to listen to her disparage the first sign of hope they have seen in a decade or more – Donald Trump.

-30- 

Friday, December 16, 2016

Russian Hacking Story Obama's Payback for Birtherism



Vincent J. Curtis

16 Dec 2016


President Barack Obama is a small man who never forgets a slight.  The evidence of it abounds from his time in office.  One deeply wounding slight to him was the issue of birtherism that was driven to a conclusion by none other than Obama’s successor as president, Donald J. Trump.

Yesterday, at the White House daily press briefing Josh Earnest delivered himself of this message to the media that came direct from his boss:

“Earnest turned up the heat on Trump and his transition over Russian interference following media reports citing CIA sources that the purpose of Russian-backed hacking was to help Trump.

'It is just a fact – you all have it on tape – that the Republican nominee for president was encouraging Russia to hack his opponent, because he believed that would help his campaign.'

'It is not a controversial statement,' Earnest continued. 'I'm not trying to be argumentative. But I am trying to acknowledge a basic fact,' Earnest said at Thursday's White House briefing.” Quoth the UK’s Daily Mail.  (“Sfunny that you won’t find this on American media.)

Well, sorry Josh.  It is a controversial statement because it simply isn’t true.  None of it is.  Trump did not encourage the Russians to hack into Hillary Clinton’s private email server because, by that point, it had been destroyed five months previously and everybody knew it.  Trump asked Putin to help out the American media and the FBI by releasing Hillary’s 33,000 deleted emails because Trump assumed that Putin had hacked Hillary’s private server before she destroyed it and he already possessed them.  Trump was being his usual provocative, sarcastic self.  Trump actually pointed at the media present at the back of the hall and said to Putin that he would become their hero, referring to the media, if he released them, embarrassing the FBI who couldn't find a copy.

Charles Krauthammer at the time noted the clever trap that Trump had set for the Democrats.  The standard Democrat defense was to condemn Trump for encouraging the Russians to hack American secrets – full stop.  Nothing was to be said about American secrets being on a secret, unsecured private server in violation of American espionage laws, out there naked waiting to be found.  The Democrat defense was simply to brazen it out.  Even Leon Panetta, former Director of the CIA, Obama’s Secretary of Defense, and partisan Democrat hack parroted the line, though he knew better because he is not that stupid.  Now Obama repeats it to a still gullible White House press corps.  And still nobody wonders about the possibility of blackmail – of a US president – that might exist in those 33,000 deleted and bleach-bitted emails.

The birther issue was started in 2008 by Sid Blumenthal, a Hillary Clinton hack, who put it into the mind of the McClatchy News service that it ought to look for Barack Obama’s birth records in Kenya, because he had heard that Obama was actually born there and not in Hawaii.  The search came up empty, and Obama was able to use the issue to his advantage, saying that birtherism was a kind of racism directed at him.  Until Trump forced the issue, Obama never took steps to put the issue to rest because he could always use it to his political advantage as a kind of race card and a sign of nuttiness in his critics. 

In 2011, Trump forced Obama to release his authentic, long form Hawaiian birth certificate.  Trump was apparently proven wrong, though he did a public service.  Obama felt humiliated because public pressure brought to bear by Trump forced him to do something he didn’t want to do.  Famously, Obama humiliated Trump at the Washington Press Corps dinner in 2011 as payback.

If Obama had been born in Kenya, his being president would be illegitimate because the U.S. constitution requires that the president be a natural born citizen.  Being born in Hawaii makes Obama a natural born citizen.  If he were born in Kenya, he would not be.

The storyline of ‘Russian hacking to aid Donald Trump’ being encouraged by the Obama Administration, first via CIA leaks and yesterday by Josh Earnest, is Obama’s final payback on de-legitimacy.  The fact that the CIA refused to meet with the House Intelligence Committee or to brief Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) of the Senate Intelligence Committee proves that they don’t have any evidence worthy of the name to show (a) hacking by Russia, and (b) with the intent of helping Donald Trump to win the election.  As a mere point of logic, without a confession from Putin himself these things are practically unprovable.  And that’s why “the CIA” doesn’t want itself subjected to examination on its evidence and findings.  More to the point, even if both were true, it in no way means Trump owes Putin anything.

It is in a way a fitting final act of his presidency that Barack Obama undertake a whispering campaign aimed at de-legitimizing his successor.
-30-

  

Thursday, December 15, 2016

CIA, Big Media Try Disinformation Against Trump



Vincent J. Curtis

15 Dec 2016


“Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?”  asked King Henry II of England in respect of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Becket, in a moment of drunken pique.  His young, loyal knights took the remark as a hint and murdered Thomas Becket in Canterbury Cathedral.

President Barack Obama is without doubt royally annoyed at the selection of Donald Trump by the American electorate to succeed him as President of the United States.  Trump promises to undo Obama’s “legacy,” such as it is.  Trump is already in control of the headlines, and is fulfilling campaign promises before he is inaugurated.  He saved jobs at Carrier; Ford Motor Company has decided not to move a production line to Mexico; a Japanese banker has pledged to invest $50 billion in the U.S., and tech giant IBM has announced plans to hire 25,000 workers.  Trump is putting together a cabinet of surpassing competence.  His approval rating has jumped 17 points since Election Day.

How to discredit this rising star?  How to put fight into Obama’s defeated and exhausted party?

An important factor in the loss by Hillary Clinton was the disclosure of the depth of corruption surrounding her.  This corruption came to public attention through WikiLeaks that posted about a thousand emails a day to a total of 50,000 from the account of Hillary’s campaign manager, John Podesta in the latter part of the campaign.  The defense the campaign mounted against this tsunami of truth was to refuse to discuss the content of the emails themselves and to focus instead on the speculation that the Russians had released the emails to WikiLeaks for the purpose of helping Donald Trump.

This total allegation contains three simple allegations: that the release was done for the purpose of helping Donald Trump; that the hackers were acting under the guidance or control of the Russian government, specifically Vladimir Putin, and the emails themselves may not be authentic.

The CIA is a highly political institution; it went to war against the Bush Administration beginning in 2004 to discredit the war policy in Iraq.  Its technique was to leak salacious information to the major media.  Since the leak came from “the CIA” the opinions contained in the leak were assumed to be likely true.  That the information could be, in reality, ass-covering, finger-pointing, and unverifiable half-truths were not cautions expressed in an ostensible “news” story.  The leak was newsworthy and was treated as “news”; the difference between the truth of a news story faithfully reported and the truth of the content of the story itself – that the actual content of the story may be somebody’s ass-covering, finger-pointing half-truth – was lost on the general public, or at least upon the media talking heads who had political axes of their own to grind.

Thus when “the CIA” leaks that Russian hackers were behind the WikiLeaks revelations about Hillary Clinton for the purpose of helping Donald Trump in the election, you have to wonder who is playing what game.  This is the same “CIA” that yesterday refused to appear before the House Intelligence Committee to explain what’s behind these findings of ‘CIA determines Russian hacking for the purpose of helping Donald Trump’ appearing in the big media but those responsible in the Congress for such things not being briefed on it.

The FBI have refused to endorse the “CIA’s” determination.

Who is “the CIA” in respect of these leaks to the major media?  Could it be outgoing CIA Director John Brennan?  Are these leakers acting upon the presumed will of President Barack Obama, in the manner of Henry II in respect of Thomas Becket?  Are they acting upon the specific instructions of Barack Obama?

Good reason exists for casting deep suspicion on this so-called “CIA determination.”  The first concerns that the WikiLeaks exposure was for the purpose of helping Donald Trump.  Unless the CIA has a human spy close to Vladimir Putin, or hold an authentic communication of his, they cannot say “for the purpose of…” because saying that means you know the mind of that person.  It is reasonable to say you think it is for the purpose of, but to say it is for the purpose of requires a high level of confidence that is unwarranted here.  There is no doubt that WikiLeaks’ founder Julian Assange wanted to hurt Hillary Clinton, and that such hurt would tend to help Donald Trump, but in that case the help entails no debt on Trump’s account and much would turn upon the authenticity of the emails.  If the emails were not authentic, then there is no help at all.  But Hillary’s campaign would say nothing about their authenticity, and after a while silence meant affirmation.

The CIA has no newsworthy proof of Russian hackers being responsible for accessing the DNC computers and John Podesta’s gmail account.  Such information would have to come from the NSA, and the NSA isn’t leaking, the FBI isn’t agreeing, and a “false flag” operation cannot be disproven at this point (A “false flag” occurs when evidence is left behind that points at someone else being the wrong-doer).  Thus somebody at the CIA is getting way over his skis in saying that Russians did the original hacking of John Podesta’s account.

Another ‘tell’ is that Barack Obama did absolutely nothing to the Russians in the course of the campaign in response to their alleged hacking and leaking.  He apparently had no diplomatic conversations with the Russians about it, he did not retaliate against the Russians, and he said nothing himself about it at all.  If incontrovertible evidence existed, you would think the President of the United States would himself caution the Russians about interfering in the U.S. election.  (Hypocrisy would drip from such a warning from Obama, but never mind.)

This source in the CIA has said nothing about the authenticity of the leaked emails.  If it admitted that they were authentic, that would change the trajectory of the story from the Russians helping Trump to Hillary’s circle really being that cynical and corrupt.  Helping Trump or not, Hillary deserved to lose.

After “the CIA” refused to appear before the House Intelligence Committee to share with them what they knew about Russian hacking, the political partisanship of that narrative became clear.  No good evidence exists that Russian hackers were the ones who gained access to John Podesta’s gmail account.  No evidence exists that Vladimir Putin ordered Podesta’s email trove to be released to WikiLeaks and that he did so for the purpose of helping Donald Trump.  The WikiLeaks disclosure likely did help Donald Trump because the emails it released were authentic, and the content of these authentic emails was damning against Hillary and her circle.  Julian Assange was motivated to hurt Hillary’s campaign, but his final motive is unclear.  He may have hoped merely to cripple her Administration by giving the Republicans ammunition for impeachment.  Donald Trump may have been helped by WikiLeaks, but the extent of it is unknown and unmeasurable. 

At this point, the obvious purpose of the CIA leaks that give legitimacy to old Democrat allegations is to give Democrats and their many friends in the major media ammunition to de-legitimize incoming President Donald Trump, implying that he is in the debt of Russian president Vladimir Putin.  But nobody owns Trump, and if Putin thinks he does he is in for a rude awakening.  And nobody is disputing that Americans actually elected Trump over Hillary with valid votes.

It is not clear whether the CIA leaking campaign to de-legitimize Trump is done at the behest of Barack Obama, or whether it is his loyal minions in the CIA performing work they think he would like to have done but can’t say so.
-30-


Tuesday, December 13, 2016

Obama Disses America on Way Out the Door



Vincent J. Curtis

13 Dec 2016

Last night, President Barack Obama dissed the country he has led for the past eight years.   He maintained it was still a racist country.  Appropriately, he did so on a comedy TV show.

“America is still struggling to overcome its legacies of slavery, Jim Crow, colonialism, and racism," he said on Comedy Central, Jon Stewart’s old show.

Comedy Central’s new host, Trevor Noah, then, in all seriousness, asked Obama how does he "skirt that line between speaking your mind and sharing your true opinions on race whilst, at the same time, not being seen to alienate some of the people you are talking to?”

Obama answered,  "You know, my general theory is that, if I was clear in my own mind about who I was, comfortable in my own skin, and had clarity about the way in which race continues to be this powerful factor in so many elements of our lives.  But that it is not the only factor in so many aspects of our lives, that we have, by no means overcome the legacies of slavery and Jim Crow and colonialism and racism, but that the progress we've made has been real and extraordinary, if I'm communicating my genuine belief that those who are not subject to racism can sometimes have blind spots or lack of appreciation of what it feels to be on the receiving end of that, but that doesn't mean that they're not open to learning and caring about equality and justice and that I can win them over because there is goodness in the majority of people."

Got that?  If Obama seriously thinks that you have a problem with race, then you should hear what he has to say about your blind spots, about what it’s like to be on the receiving end of racism, that you ought to be open to what he has to say if you care at all about equality and justice.  That is, if you are a good person.  Never mind that he has no personal experience of adverse racism himself.

So, after eight years of Obama, America has by no means overcome the “legacies” of slavery and Jim Crow and colonialism and racism, though extraordinary and real progress has been made.  What is extraordinary to me is that Obama was ever seriously considered as a public intellectual; and that he was calls into question the intellectual seriousness of those scholars who did.  Let’s dissect what Obama just maintained.

Insofar as slavery and Jim Crow belong to the history of the United States, there will be no overcoming of the legacies of those things.  You can’t change history, and legacies are about history.  Slavery and Jim Crow themselves however, since they have been abolished, have been overcome.  But so long as there are race hucksters like Michelle Obama, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, the Congressional Black Caucus, and Barack Obama himself (to say nothing of the Democrat party) exploiting the memory of the injustices of the past for their benefit in the here and now, there won’t be an overcoming of the “legacies” of those things.

What about the overcoming of colonialism?  Obama here reveals his Bill Ayers/African perspective.  Of course America is guilty!  Never mind the details!

Europeans colonized America, a continent practically empty of human beings in the 16th century.  The Thirteen Colonies relieved Great Britain of the guilt of colonialism in the territory of the United States in 1784, so who in America exactly is guilty of colonialism today, and in what sense?  America herself never had an empire as that term is conventionally understood, and stood for the end of European colonialism before and after World War II.  If Obama means that America colonized its own territory with Americans and displaced native American Indians in the course of doing so, then Obama reveals a rarified, peculiar, and utterly impractical sense of the meaning of colonialism.  In that sense, Europe itself was colonized by the barbarians between the 3rd and 6th Centuries, A.D.  Does guilt still attach to that, and to whom does it attach in this worldview – the Europeans of today?  The Mongols?

In Obama’s view, there is no escaping the guilt of something.  He says that “extraordinary and real progress” has been made in overcoming the “legacies of slavery, Jim Crow, colonialism and racism” but he holds out no hope of ever getting past the legacies of these things.  How much progress must be made before a legacy is overcome, and who is to judge when these legacies are overcome?  Obama offers no answer, which is why I question the depth of his alleged intellectualism.  He must either have some answer in mind, or his words are simply means of putting a class of white people on an endless treadmill of guilt and atonement.

For a man who has not a drop of slave blood in his veins, and who is himself half white, Obama is extraordinarily conscious of race.  He admitted in his own memoirs that he could exploit white guilt over racism and slavery to his personal benefit.  Witness his career at University.  Witness his claim to be president.  Obama is a past master of exploiting America’s legacy of racism for his personal benefit.

In the 2016 presidential election, over 200 counties that voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012 voted for Trump, and this difference is what led to Trump’s triumph.  He told his supporters that he would regard it as a personal insult if Donald Trump were elected president as a result of their actions or failures to act.  Well, Trump was elected and Obama is about to see his own legacy destroyed.

Appearing on a comedy show and telling America it remains guilty of racism, colonialism, Jim Crow, and slavery is Obama’s retort and rebuke of the country that twice elected him president, and that rejects what he did while in office.

Obama is nothing if not modest!
-30-


Monday, December 12, 2016

Russian Hacking Influenced U.S. Election?



Vincent J. Curtis

12 Dec 2016


What has been bruited for months broke into the open last week when the Obama White House released a CIA assessment that Russians were the hackers that broke into the DNC computers and the email account of John Podesta and released them to WikiLeaks.  The object of the hacking and leaking, allegedly, was to influence the outcome of the presidential election to favor Donald Trump.

Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton – who is one of the names in the mix to be named as Trump’s Secretary of State – threw out the possibility that the Russian angle was a “false flag,” meaning the hackers planted evidence that the hacking originated in Russia as a means of distracting attention away from the true identity of the hackers.

Fox News Chief Judicial Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano has for months been speculating that the hacking was actually done by America’s own National Security Agency (NSA), an agency who chief expertise is SIGINT and electronic eavesdropping.  Judge Napolitano believes the NSA is behind it partially as revenge against Hillary Clinton for her use of an unsecured private server that compromised human intelligence assets overseas, and against Barack Obama for conversing with Mrs. Clinton about highly classified matters via her secret server.  Napolitano believes the high level of sophistication in covering up the hack is additional evidence that points at the NSA. 

Let’s also not forget that President Obama fired NSA chief Lt.-Gen. Michael Flynn in 2013 for being publicly at odds with the Administration on the assessment of ISIS.  Flynn, who is going to be Donald Trump’s National Security Advisor, may be popular enough among the rank-and-file NSA personnel that payback on that account could also be a motivator.

That an intelligence agency may go to war against the Administration is it supposed to serve is not unprecedented.  Between 2004 and 2007, the CIA went to war against the Bush Administration, doing everything in its power to undermine his policies in Iraq, and collaterally in domestic issues also.  What Napolitano describes is criminal in nature.

The FBI, on the other hand, has been reluctant to name the Russian government, and specifically Russian President Vladimir Putin, as being behind the release hacked emails.

What to make of all this?

In the first place, that the CIA would allow itself to be used in a blatantly partisan manner shows how politicized the CIA remains.  The purpose of pinning the hacking on the Russians is to de-legitimize Donald Trump, and to draw a number of red herrings across a path that leads to Hillary Clinton.

In Hillary’s first email scandal, the one involving her secret server, some 33,000 “private” emails were deleted from her server despite a congressional subpoena.  Because her email archive had been bleach-bitted, the FBI were not able to ascertain whether or not that server had been hacked.  Those private emails contained incontrovertible evidence of the quid pro quo that existed between contributions to the Clinton Foundation and actions by Hillary Clinton in her role as U.S. Secretary of State.  The Clinton campaign always maintained that the FBI’s failure to find evidence of hacking in the ruins of her server was proof that her server had never been hacked.

Every new release of hacked emails tended to show that Hillary’s server was likely hacked, and only the destruction of her email archive contrary to the subpoena enabled her to maintain a semblance of defense.  To bolster that defense, the Russian angle in other hackings was harped upon.  Never mind the content of the material, look at who did the hacking and why: the Russians to help Donald Trump defeat Hillary.  Such was the Democrat mantra, repeated with the regularity of an alarm clock.  A media utterly and unprofessionally hostile to Donald Trump accepted the line, and never tried to look beyond it.

The content of Hillary’s second and third email scandals brought people low.  The hacking of the DNC computer proved that the Committee, and specifically the Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, were rigging the system to help Hillary win the nomination.  The first WikiLeaks disclosure forced the resignation of Wasserman-Schultz from the position as Chair on the eve of the nominating convention.  Nobody denied that the content of the emails of the DNC hack were true.  The emails released by WikiLeaks weren’t going to change the outcome of the Democrat Convention, however; all it showed was that Hillary was, by God, going to be the Democrat nominee this time, and the DNC was going to make damn sure of it.  Russians being the hackers in this case was kicked around, but nobody then made a big issue of it.  The embarrassing content of the emails was offset by speculation about who the hackers were.  (Shades of the Benghazi cover-up scheme!)

Hillary’s third email scandal and the second major WikiLeaks disclosure undermined her campaign.  Whatever her campaign had to say about her platform was subsumed between its attacks on Donald Trump’s fitness for office and answering questions about the details of the hacking of John Podesta’s gmail account.  Donna Brazile, who replaced Debbie Wasserman-Schultz as Chair of the DNC after the latter’s resignation, was herself forced to resign and she was fired from her job as a commentator on CNN after the emails revealed that she had fed debate questions to Hillary’s campaign prior to debates.  Trump likened this to giving the questions to the contestant before filming an episode of the $64,000 Question, with Hillary being culpable for not disclosing that she had been fed the question beforehand.

In the face of the massive release of emails by WikiLeaks that revealed how deep the corruption ran in Hillary’s world, the candidate and the campaign refused to discuss the content of the emails and play up the storyline that the Russians did the hacking to help Donald Trump.  By now, the possibility that Hillary’s private emails had been hacked and that she could be blackmailed by the Russians who had proof of quid pro quo was forgotten because the emails of this release were so salacious.  The campaign would neither confirm nor deny the content of the emails, they would immediately change the subject to Russian hacking to help Donald Trump.

Well, Donald Trump won the election in part because of the deep corruption exposed by the emails.  Suppose the Russians were behind the hacking, what does that change?  The emails released by WikiLeaks were actual, and they gave the American electorate a lot of things to think about.  In particular, that Hillary would look upon the presidency as her Eldorado; that American policy would be up for auction; that the favor of America’s president could be bought.  The content of the leaks was devastating.

Regardless of the source of the hack, none of the content was made up.  Whoever was responsible gave the American electorate a lot more information than they would have got from the American media left to its own devices and if it weren’t prodded along by the salaciousness of the leaks.

The claim of Russian origin is simply a means of de-legitimizing Trump because he is made to appear as their favorite.  The hypocrisy of Democrats holding that Russia is a dangerous foe is too much to discuss at this point.  Anyhow, Russian payback against Barack Obama and his precious legacy can’t be dismissed out of hand.

But if the Russians thought that they could own Donald Trump because of this hacking, they are in for a surprise.  Trump may want to try a new, friendlier diplomatic tack with Putin, but if Putin makes Trump look like a loser or a sucker, Trump will react violently and unpredictably.  Nobody owns Trump.

Even if all the Democrat allegations are true, that the Russians did the hacking for the purpose of Donald Trump, that isn’t going to help the Russians much in dealing with Trump.
-30-


Thursday, December 8, 2016

Trump’s Triumph and Canadian Defense



Vincent J. Curtis

10 Nov 2016


With the election of Donald Trump as the next President of the United States, the world can expect a large recapitalization of the U.S. military over the next four to eight years.  We can also expect the Trump Administration to pressure NATO allies to increase their defense expenditures to 2 % of their GDP.

Trump famously campaigned on the theme that the United States was not going to carry a heavier share of the defense burden of the western world than was justified by economics.  If NATO allies expected the assistance of the United States, then they needed to do their part.  Some of that pressure will undoubtedly be applied to Canada, for Canada is one of those not spending up to the agreed level of 2 % of GDP.

What does that mean for Canadian defense?

In the first place, it would mean that the Canadian defense budget needs to be in the range of CDN $48 billion.  The budget track released by the Trudeau government in its maiden budget forecasts decreases in defense expenditures – the amount projected for 2016 was $29.4 billion with a decrease to $14.4 billion by 2020-2021.  In the eyes of Trump, we are moving in the wrong direction.

Yes, defense is one of many competing priorities for Federal tax expenditures, but national defense and maintaining good relations with allies are among the most fundamental of priorities of any national government.  Those priorities have a higher call for money than new spending to make life more comfortable for a minority of Canadians.  The needs of all take priority over the needs of the few.

What use could be made of additional defense expenditures?

There is no question that the Canadian Armed Forces are in need of recapitalization.  The navy needs to be completely rebuilt, and soon.  The fighting capacity of the RCAF is aging rapidly, and the replacement for the CF-18 fleet is late and nowhere in sight.  The army could also use a new store of capital equipment for general purpose combat operations.

The government is dithering over whether it should acquire ten or twelve frigates to refight the Battle of the Atlantic, should it ever come back.  The naval brass is still in the grip of the old-school small ship navy mentality that has dominated Canadian naval thinking since the days of the Niobe and the Rainbow.  The RCN brass need to have in their top drawer a plan for a real battle fleet, a fleet consisting not just of frigates but of one or more battlecruisers as well.  And if battlecruisers seem to be too war-like for political tastes, then missile-cruisers in the 10,000 ton range can be had off-the-shelf from the United States at $2 billion apiece, less than the cost of a 5,000 ton custom-built frigate.  Anyhow, a capitalization project in the range of $40 billion should be ready to go.

The RCAF is caught between the failure of Lockheed-Martin to deliver a viable F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in a timely and cost efficient manner, and a new government that wants to start the bidding process for the CF-18 from scratch.  The solutions are easy: buy off the shelf F-16s, or the updated F/A-18E/F Super Hornet off the shelf, both of which are also still in production.  These are Gen 4.5 fighters, not Gen 5 fighters, but they can be had soon; they are still current and viable for modern combat air operations, and should be seen as an interim purchase until the Gen 5 fighters are finally available.

The army could also use a store of useful equipment, in particular modern artillery.  The M-777 proved spectacular in Afghanistan, and no army has been able to succeed in modern combat operations in the absence of dominant artillery since the Thirty Years War.

The problem of joint operations between air and surface has and will continue to bedevil CAF combat operations.  If it flies, it is said to belong to the RCAF.  But what about rotary aviation?  What about a naval aircraft carrier?  The United States solved this inter-service problem by assigning rotary aviation to the army and the Marines, and carrier aircraft to the navy.  The USAF was assigned responsibility for long-range bombers, intercontinental missiles and space operations, and that satisfied the inter-service rivalry problem.  That solution is not possible for Canada, since we have no long range bombers, ICBMs, or space operations.

If the army is going to overcome its deficiency of rotary combat aviation, the question of ownership needs to be solved.  Nevertheless, the development of combat aviation under the direct control of army command is something Canada may need to resolve, and the pressure of increasing CAF combat capability would be an impetus.

The pressure of Russia on NATO and of China in the South China Sea is not going to disappear under a Trump Administration.  They will be resolved by increasing the combat power of NATO, which will add firmness to diplomacy.

Canada is being looked to as a bigger player in the world.  We are no longer the fireproof house far from the sources of conflagration.  Greater combat power in the CAF is necessary for Canada to play its proper role in keeping peace in the world.
-30-


 A version of this appeared in the Vol 23 Issue 11 of Esprit de Corps magazine.

Friday, November 25, 2016

Die Hard Dems Harass Trump Transition


Vincent J. Curtis

25 Nov 2016


Senator Elizabeth Fauxcahontas (D-MA) and Representative Elijah (Herring Oil) Cummings (D-MD) learned nothing from the results of the Nov 8th election.  This odd couple co-signed a letter together requesting the Comptroller General of the Government Accountability Office to conduct a review of the presidential transition.  And given how short a time frame in which the transition will be completed, they want the CG to move with un-governmental haste.  The point of this is to try to disrupt the transition by embroiling it in an audit before it is complete.  The further purpose is to cause pain to President-Elect Trump for the crime of winning the election and exposing how weak the belief in progressivism really is in America.

This letter is founded upon “false news.”  News that the transition is in “disarray,” “chaotic,” and Trump involved in “conflicts of interest,” are claimed as the basis of the need for the investigation, and all claims are footnoted to stories from Trump-hating journalists in the MSM.  Fauxcahontas and Herring Oil go so far as to say, “Mr. Trump’s apparent conflicts of interest – and his behavior during the campaign and after his election – raise questions about the use of taxpayer funds during the transition, and about the decisions made during the transition that will affect federal government policies under the Trump Administration.

The Senator and the Congressman demand that a bureaucrat intervene in the political transition of the constitutional republic on the grounds of Mr. Trump’s behavior in order to change the direction of the policies he will pursue as President.  In the immediate aftermath of the election.  Who said, “Let every vote count?”  What is the point of voting at all if the decision can be marred or overturned by the actions of an obscure bureaucrat acting beyond his authority?  (Since the expenditure is not complete, and at this point has not exceeded its budgeted limit, there is no cause for a review.)

Senator Fauxcahontas is a harridan of the first order.  Her standard speaking style is high-castigation.  Like most extreme progressives, her cause is her shield from sin and, consequently, she knows no shame of hypocrisy.  The Senator is known as Fauxcahontas because she deceived Harvard University about her ancestry – she claimed to be 1/32 Cherokee Indian – and on the basis of being a “native American” Harvard hired her as faculty.  She is suspected of practicing law without a licence in the state of Massachusetts to supplement her faculty pay, and somehow managed to become a 1 percenter in income during the years she stoutly defended the illegal sit-in of Wall Street.  Her deception only came to light as a result of her running for public office.

Representative Herring Oil gained a great deal of moral authority during the Civil Rights battles of the 1960s.  Since then, he has expended that moral capital defending the indefensible in the cause of partisan Democrat politics.  In his position as ranking member of the House Oversight Committee and the House Select Committee on Benghazi , he spent his time and remaining moral capital defending Hillary Clinton, undermining the legitimacy of the investigations, and stopping justice from being done.  It eventually got done, but at the hands of the electorate, not the Congress.  The Congressman got the nickname “Herring Oil” during the campaign when, at an opportune moment, he was covered in Red Herring Oil and tossed under the campaign bus in order to distract the press hounds from following the trail of Hillary’s latest scandal.

What makes this pairing odd is that Representative Oil is not famous for being progressive.  He is an extreme partisan Democrat party man and civil rights totem, but bathroom etiquette is not high on his list of priorities.  Fauxcahontas, on the other hand, is an extreme adherent of the cause – whatever it happens to be – and is only incidentally Democrat.  They seem to have little in common.  I can see Fauxcahontas doing anything to harass Donald Trump, but I see no reason for Herring Oil to degrade his reputation any further by signing on to this loser of a letter.  Fauxcahontas is a hater, and causing pain to those she hates gives her pleasure.  I don’t see what Herring Oil gets out of this.

Most of America is in the mood for conciliation.  I sense that most Americans are glad the campaign is over, they like the overtures the President-Elect is making to those who opposed him during the campaign, and they want President Trump to be successful.  This letter proves that there are corners of the Democrat Party that want more conflict and will resort to underhandedness in order to cause Trump to fail.

Even now, progressives are harassing Trump electors in the Electoral College to get them to be faithless in their votes.  Green Party candidate Jill Stein raised more money to hold a recount in Wisconsin than she raised during the campaign.  She was not close in Wisconsin, and neither was Hillary, and Michigan just declared for Trump, enlarging his unconquerable majority even more.  What is the point of these pointless challenges, when they cause nothing but pain and fail to advance the cause of national conciliation?

The response to war is war.  The new Congress is going to have its hands full with Trump’s legislative agenda and new appointments.  Not only are all the cabinet officers in need of Senate confirmation, but so will be the new Supreme Court justice.  There is will be legislation to repeal and replace Obamacare, to start building the wall, to fix immigration, to pass a sensible infrastructure bill, and to reform the tax code, just to mention a few.  The chances to obstruct the new Administration while its political capital is great are highest during this period.

The House has the rules of procedure that will enable the majority to drive the new President’s legislative agenda forward quickly.  The problem lies in the Senate, and the filibuster is the name of the problem.  When it was convenient, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) used the so-called nuclear option to defeat the filibuster and gain appointments for Barack Obama, and he then went on to declare the nuclear option legitimate only for those occasions when he used it.  The current Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is a traditionalist, and it would cause him a lot of pain to widen the breach in Senate protocol caused by Reid.  Nevertheless, McConnell needs to steel himself for the inevitable.  It would gain him no satisfaction to realize the pain he would cause in the Democrats to see their obstructionism turned against them by a means they employed first.  But war can only be beaten down by war, and war against fanatics will not end until the life is beaten out of them.

We will see whether Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) is as concerned with Senate protocol as McConnell is – I doubt it- but the devastation in his caucus may bother him more than it would Fauxcahontas.  Fauxcahontas has no investment in the party as Schumer does, and I’m quite certain that she would be as grimly satisfied at the devastation of the Senate Democrats in the wake of widespread nuclear warfare as Hitler was at the devastation of the Germany that failed him.  It will be up the Schumer to bring her to heel.

There are still Democrats who want war.  I understand the desire and the need for reconciliation, and those two aims might be met if an example were made of those who still pursue war.
-30-


Thursday, November 24, 2016

Trump trumps hate



Vincent J. Curtis

24 Nov 2016


Among blessings America celebrates this Thanksgiving Day, one of them has to be their release from the political thrall of the House of Clinton.   The media remains full of hysteria over the remarkable and unexpected victory of Donald Trump at the election. 

Something yet to be noticed is that no one seems to be lamenting the defeat of Hillary Clinton.  For the media and the progressive movement in the United States, Hillary was a mere totem, a fill-in-the-blank candidate representing progressivism, and it is the rejection of progressivism that all the hysteria is about.

For reasons I cannot fathom, Bill Clinton became a hero of the Democrat party.  His ego and his wife’s greed conspired to turn the Democrat party into a vehicle for the satisfaction of both their needs.  Hillary’s evident track to become president one day enabled Bill to remain politically relevant, and both of them to make tons of money shaking down those seeking to buy favors or merely to be seen in close proximity to power.  The Democrat party turned itself into the machinery for the triumph of progressivism and – what seemed the same thing – triumph for the House of Clinton.

The American electorate sickened of progressivism during the malign presidency of Barack Obama, and change from the era of hope and change was in the air in 2016.  Hillary represented boilerplate progressivism, but she also carried with her “more baggage than Delta Airlines,” as one wag put it.  Her utter corruption, her mendacity, her trio of email scandals: of her private server, of the hacking of the DNC, and then of John Podesta; and the legal problems she was having eventually brought her low.  Now, the House of Clinton lies at the mercy of President Donald J. Trump.

Among the other casualties of the defeat of the House of Clinton was progressivism and its bastard offspring, political correctness.  The credibility of the media was destroyed by the election result, as practically all the MSM deemed Trump unworthy and unacceptable. The big media ran pieces every day deploring Trump in some way, and they were cheerleaders for Hillary Clinton.  The American people told the media they were all wrong.

One of the slogans of the Democrat/Progressive/Hillary campaign was “Love trumps hate.”  This was supposed to be a clever riff on Trump’s name, but this shallow piece of thought exposed how empty-headed its chanters were.  In the first place, the slogan was employed with a malice and hate entirely at odds with the idea of love.  In the second, the slogan shows that, while it thinks of itself as secular Christianity, progressivism does not understand what Christian love truly is.  The chanters of the slogan proved to be the real haters themselves.  And this is becoming all the more manifest as President-Elect Trump tries to reconcile the nation.  Trump is reaching out to political opponents both inside and outside the Republican Party, and while the Republicans have been receptive, those outside the party are absolute rejectionists of his overtures.  Their hate closes their minds to the potential for conciliation.

The media are having a hard time reconciling themselves to Trump’s victory.  At a closed-door meeting with the leading lights of the media - senior executives of news divisions and news readers themselves - Trump reputedly laid into them.  He purportedly said to Jeff Zucker, head of the Clinton News Network (with Wolf Blitzer in attendance), that his network was full of liars and that he ought to be ashamed of himself.  Trump also met with the New York Times for a discussion partly on the record and partly off.  If the media is going to regain credibility with the American electorate, as they must if they expect to fulfill their traditional role (that they abandoned for the eight years of the Obama presidency), then there are going to have to be firings at the major networks and major newspapers.

That message has yet to sink in.  We are still getting stories slanted against Trump.  We get Wolf Blitzer and others in the MSM fretting worrisomely about the alleged endorsement of Trump by the KKK, and the insufficient number of times that Trump has rejected it and denounced the Klan.  For the media, Trump is supposed to be a dog who barks upon command.  We get stories fretting about the human things he does, like meet with his family, and meet with business acquaintances who want their picture taken with their recently elected friend.  We get stories fretting about Trump’s business empire and all the conflicts of interest that could be created, forgetting that they didn’t report on how the Clinton Foundation worked.

This morning on the CNBC website, we get a story headlined, “Trump releases video at odds with his combative post-election tone.”  The use of “at-odds” conveys hypocrisy; if it had been written “Trump releases conciliatory video” it would have portrayed accurately the Trump was trying to be nice, not that he was acting hypocritically.

Over at CNN, we get headlines like these, “Clinton’s popular vote lead grows to 2 million,” and “Trump aide mocks vote challenge” The media hate continues.  The story on the popular vote lead seeks to de-legitimize Trump’s victory, and the word ‘mocks’ is used incorrectly; but it conveys indignity in the people around Trump.

I’ve seen stories on Fox that fret over Trump’s alleged preference for aged white males over women and minorities in cabinet selections.  This sort of identity politics is characteristic of the progressivism that was rejected at the polls.  I don’t think of Dr. Ben Carson as the “black” representative in Trump’s cabinet, or Mitt Romney as the Mormon representative, or Betsy DeVos as the female representative.  It takes time to gain experience, and the outstanding characteristic of these and other people Trump has talked to is their personal attainments gained over a lifetime of experience.  Youth and inexperience gets you a Ben Rhodes or a Van Jones.  Trump is surrounding himself with a team of winners, not rivals or radicals as the left tries to portray.

Barack Obama dismissed General James Mattis with disgrace from the military, and it is entirely fitting that Trump bring Mattis back as Secretary of Defense.  Mattis’ experience did not comport with what Obama thought should be reality, and having been through the fire Mattis will cure the Defense Department of Obamaism.

There will be no honeymoon period between the media and Donald Trump.  We can expect stories in the MSM to be slanted against Trump.  Everything he says and does will be turned to undermine his presidency.  The hate will continue.   Trump has already shown that he will bypass the media using social media to get his real message and intent out.

Trump’s victory was one over hate.  The basket of deplorables rose up against those who held them in contempt.  Trump owes his victory entirely to the people because everyone but the people were against him during the campaign.  Trump trumped the campaign of hate against him and the people who support him.

Progressivism has not learned its lesson, for to learn it is for progressivism to die.  We can expect the progressive campaign of hatred for Trump to continue.  But so long as Trump fulfills his promises and maintains his contact with the people, the campaign of hate will only separate the media from the people, and hopefully then the media from paid advertising.
-30-


Monday, November 21, 2016

Rule 8



Vincent J. Curtis

21 Nov 2016


Number 8 of Saul D. Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals reads , “Keep the pressure on.  Never let up.”  Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance.  As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.  (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)

Barack Obama is an acolyte of Saul D. Alinsky, having trained at his school of social organization.  He is an acolyte of ACORN, a now -defunct Alinskyite organization for which he served as legal counsel.  He is a disciple of Weather Underground founder Bill Ayers, and racist reverend Jeremiah (God damned Amerika!) Wright, in whose pews he sat for twenty years allegedly without hearing or learning anything.  Progressives across America have been violently protesting the election of Donald Trump to succeed Obama as President of the United States, and when invited by the press to tell his people to stifle and give the new man a chance, Obama replied with advice for his fellow- travelers “not to stay silent.”

We have the cast of the Broadway play “Hamilton” presuming to lecture the Vice-President-Elect Mike Pence from the stage.  The actors have been immersed in the history of the American revolution and have learned nothing about the need for civil discourse in public affairs.

Senator Charles Schumer (N-NY) will become the new minority leader in the Senate in the next session of congress with the retirement of the execrable Harry Reid (D-NV).  Schumer promises fierce resistance to the judicial and cabinet appointments of the incoming administration.  In particular, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) is going to receive his second dose of “borking.”

Thirty years ago, President Ronald Reagan nominated Alabama Attorney-General Jeff Sessions to a Federal judgeship, an appointment that requires Senate confirmation.  Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Senator Joe Bite-me (D-Neptune) run the Senate judiciary committee at the time.  Kennedy and Bite-me developed the technique which came to be known as “borking” on Jeff Sessions.  Entirely false and scurrilous accusations were made against the nominee, a cloud of suspicion was created, and the nomination was scuttled on the basis of suspicion.  Sessions’ nomination was a small affair, but when the same method was employed later in the year against Reagan’s nominee for the Supreme Court Robert Bork, it became known as ‘borking.”

The people of Alabama knew Sessions better than the news media in Washington, D.C. and they elected him repeatedly to the U.S. Senate to serve alongside such ornaments as Senator Kennedy and Senator Bite-me.  At his last election, Senator Sessions was elected unopposed.

Now that Sessions has been selected to serve as President Donald Trump’s Attorney-General, Chuck Schumer is promising a bruising nomination battle, founded upon the scurrilous falsehoods leveled against Sessions thirty years ago.  Schumer is not as progressive as Barack Obama, but Schumer is nevertheless a vicious partisan.  During the nomination hearings of Sam Alito to the Supreme Court, I witnessed Schumer saying that he had “not yet made up his mind” about how he was going to vote on the nomination, and I saw Schumer’s nose grow an inch there and then.  As expected, Schumer voted against the nomination.  One can only hope that since Schumer has openly declared that he is going to engage in scurrilous, partisan mud-slinging to block the Sessions appointment, that Republican Senators apply the lessons they’ve learned and play smash-mouth politics themselves.  No parliamentary maneuver is too low to defeat Senator Schumer’s campaign.

Then there is the media.  Since I do not watch the Clinton News Network or MSNBC, I get my news primarily from Fox.  Juan Williams is Fox’s view into the liberal-progressivist mind, and he too is making entirely worrisome noises about the Trump Administration.  On the Nov 20th edition of Fox News Sunday, Williams said this about retired Lt-Gen Michael Flynn, the incoming National Security Adviser and retired head of the Defense Intelligence Agency:

“I think the question really is about the appointments and the appointment process. So you have people who I would say don't fit into exactly a team of rivals, but to many people a team of radicals. A team of radicals in terms of, what are these people representing? Flynn, Mike Flynn, I don't think he could be confirmed, but so he's getting the -- the national security advisor job. …. And the way that he left there and questions about his management style and about sharing information and what some in the intelligence community call "Flynn facts," which is facts that don't comport with what others in the intelligence community believe to be true. Colin Powell writing in the WikiLeaks leak that he thought he was unhinged. I think this tells you this -- it would be very difficult….Well, I think when you think about someone like Flynn, Americans, … are concerned when you look at his ties to Russia, his ties to Vladimir Putin. When they think about his ties to Turkey –“

At this point, panelist and Trump supporter Laura Ingraham interrupted:

INGRAHAM: What are they, Juan? What are you talking about?
WILLIAMS: Well, remember, he went --
INGRAHAM: Are you just throwing out --
INGRAHAM: Yes. OK. Well, there was a lot said by Juan. But you said team of radicals. This is the kind of stuff that has turned people against Washington, D.C. And these type -- this -- these types of lines against true patriots, who sacrificed for their country, who are beloved among the men and women in the military, who actually do the heavy lifting for all of us. Mattis, General Mattis, is one of the most beloved Marines of the last 50 years. General Flynn is considered one of the pre-eminent intelligence experts of our age. So to throw out these lines, a team of radicals, that serves nobody's interest. If you have a substantive disagreement with their approach to fighting terror or their approach to intelligence, that's fine. But these blithe comments, I think, have poisoned political discussion in this country, and I think it's exactly why people despise this city.”

Exactly right.  Mike Flynn is a thirty-year career intelligence officer who rose to the highest ranks and responsibilities of his profession.  His security clearance is so high it would give Juan Williams a nose-bleed.  Yet the insight into liberal thinking is suggesting that Flynn would sell-out America to Russia or Turkey, for what?  A dinner?

It used to be that Americans selling-out America was a noble thing to liberals.  And Russia used to be a favored liberal and progressive place during the days of the old Soviet Union.  Now, when it’s convenient, the liberal is now saying that selling-out is bad, and that a conservative patriot highly, highly trusted and vetted by the U.S government was going to do it.

Progressives never give in.  That is why they deserve no quarter from the Republicans, or from Trump.  Incivility breeds incivility.  Incivility can only be smashed by incivility.
-30-



Thursday, November 17, 2016

Rule 5 and Rule 11



Vincent J. Curtis

17 Nov 2016


Rule 5 of Saul D. Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals reads, “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”  There is no defense.  It’s irrational.  It’s infuriating.  It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

Rule 11 reads, “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”  Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.

Since the election of Donald Trump certain cities in America have been beset by rioting, or “demonstrations” and “protests” in the delicate language of a media that believes in the same cause as the rioters.

Let’s apply Rule 11.  Okay, rioters what do you propose?  Do you want the results of the election overturned?  Are you trying to force Trump to adopt a progressivist political line – the line of Barack Obama that was so decisively rejected at the election?  What is the point of all this property destruction?  The short answer is that you don't have an alternative, constructive or otherwise.

There is no chance of Trump bowing to your demands, rioters.  He got elected because most of the country despise what you do, and have little use for what you stand for.  Your protests confirm that Trump’s election was the right thing to do.  Trump’s election is the repudiation of you, you losers and cry-babies.

That last line broached onto Rule 5, ridicule.  Poor losers and cry-babies, that’s what they are.  They’ve had their turn, and now it’s somebody else’s, and they can’t tolerate that.

It’s almost fun to watch liberals in the media speak of “fear” (I’m thinking of you, Juan).  I know that “fear” is disingenuous, it’s a way of asking for their way anyhow despite the election results.  But if they truly are fearful, then they deserve the pain they suffer.  They’re being stupid, and being stupid deserves punishment.  Tell me you’re afraid; I’m enjoying it, but try to be more convincing when you say it because I hate being lied to my face.  Lying to people’s faces was a strong motivator to vote against Hillary, Obama, and everything those two stood for – like Obamacare, that was passed on a lie.  Adolescents are better at lying to get their way then they are.  The rioters and MSM are too old to be adolescents, even as they try to recreate the skills they once possessed at a younger age.

Don’t tell me you’re suffering when you’re not.  That’s another example of the PC lie that just got repudiated.  Grow-up you cry-babies, you infants; we’re on to you.  It’s not working any more.

Rule 5 is great.  Highly satisfying to use.
-30-




Wednesday, November 16, 2016

The Execrable Harry Reid: Good Riddance



Vincent J. Curtis

16 Nov 2016


In a previous posting headlined, “Why Hillary is so Polarizing” I wrote about the need for pluralism and tolerance, civility and decency in the public life of a peaceful society.  The characteristics were essential to a peaceful, orderly society.

In America,  there is Harry Reid (D-NV), the Senate Minority Leader and leader of the Democrats in the Senate since 2007.  With his long service at the head of the Senate Democrats, there is no doubt that he represents a dominant faction within the Democrat party.  He is not civil.  He is not tolerant, or accepting of plurality.

From his perch at the head of the Senate Democrats, with the civil protection of that body around him, Reid has lied on the floor of the Senate to advance his political causes.  In particular, he lied about the tax returns of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, and this conduced to the re-election of Democrat President Barack Obama.  Afterwards, when confronted with his lie, Reid, amused, said, “Well, he didn’t win, did he.”

The toxic Harry Reid has had no small part in the viciousness, the partisanship, and the gridlock in Washington, D.C. since his election to the Senate in 2001.  His rapid elevation to Whip and then to Leader was rapid, indicating his high popularity among his fellow Democrats.  They selected him because of his viciousness and ruthlessness towards his political enemies.

Reid is not a poor man.  He started out poor, but the rise in the Reid fortune has been dated by Rush Limbaugh from the time Reid became the Chair of the Nevada Gaming Commission.  Reid says he was a pretty good young lawyer, and intimated he got his wealth through his private legal work, which is pretty good when you’ve only worked in the private sector for a couple of years.  The rest of the time, by Limbaugh’s account, was spent in some government job or other.

About two years ago Reid was viciously beaten in his home over the Christmas break.  He reappeared in Washington bruised and with dark sunglasses covering a blackened eye that stayed blackened for months.  Reid lost the sight of that eye.  Reid said his injuries were due to an accident with exercise equipment at home, but he didn’t sue the equipment company for negligence until questions started getting asked, and he hasn’t pursued the case.  What happened is that thugs Reid knew came to collect on a debt, most likely a political debt.  In retirement, and unable to pay any more political debts, Reid is going to hunker down in a bunker somewhere and await the grim reaper.

But before his final departure, Reid had to pump his last load of bile into the public domain.  Trying to hold on to his partisan credentials, Reid said this of Donald Trump in the aftermath of Trump’s surprising election as president:

Harry Reid:

“The election of Donald Trump has emboldened the forces of hate and bigotry in America. White nationalists, Vladimir Putin and ISIS are celebrating Donald Trump’s victory, while innocent, law-abiding Americans are wracked with fear...”

“African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Muslim Americans, LGBT Americans and Asian Americans [..] children waking up in the middle of the night crying, terrified that Trump will take their parents away.”

“We as a nation must find a way to move forward without consigning those who Trump has threatened to the shadows. Their fear is entirely rational, because Donald Trump has talked openly about doing terrible things to them.”

“If this is going to be a time of healing, we must first put the responsibility for healing where it belongs: at the feet of Donald Trump, a sexual predator who lost the popular vote and fueled his campaign with bigotry and hate.”


A sign of Reid failing hold on Senate Democrats is that Joe Manchin (D-WV) dared to publicly rebuke his leader Reid as follows:

Joe Manchin:

“Senator Harry Reid's statement today attacking President-elect Trump is wrong! It is an absolute embarrassment to the Senate as an institution, our Democratic party, and the nation.

As difficult as it is for anyone to lose an election, the American people have spoken and Donald Trump is our President-elect. Senator Reid’s words needlessly feed the very divisiveness that is tearing this country apart.

Now, more than ever, it is time for us all to come together as Americans. We must as Secretary Clinton and President Obama so graciously said, have an open mind and give President-elect Trump the chance to lead."

"Unfortunately, there are some who forget that at times like these it is wrong to put party and politics above our country.”


It is satisfying that Harry Reid lived to see everything he worked for destroyed and repudiated by the American people.  During his uncivil leadership, the Democrat party sunk to its lowest ebb in political fortune since the 1870s.  He will disappear from the scene unloved and unlamented.  He will live in fear of retribution by his business associates for the rest of his miserable life.

Until the Democrat party purges itself of the vicious partisanship championed by Reid and others in the party, it deserves to sink even lower in the public estimation.  Civility and decency needs to return to American public life, and intolerance of pluralism needs to disappear.  The Harry Reid character needs to be purged from the Democrat party.
-30-


Tuesday, November 15, 2016

Hang Him for Headlines



Vincent J. Curtis

15 Nov 2016


It used to be the left that thought it had a monopoly on subversive satire.  The left could make scurrilous attacks on figures of the right, make fun of its political opponents, and it was the right that was supposed to take the vicious attacks silently.  Even accept it as humorous, sometimes.  It would be contrary to the left’s right of free speech to try to hold the left accountable for all the scurrilous things they said.

Breitbart News put the shoe on the other foot, and now we are seeing what humorless turds there are on the left.

In the face of right-wing satire, the left get all passive-aggressive.  They get their feelings hurt and offended.  They try their usual bullying tactics to get the right to stop the return fire.  They feign fear.  They try to shut down the right of free speech of their opponents.  And when all else fails, they resort to violence.

Steve Bannon has been named as President-Elect Donald Trump’s senior political advisor.  Bannon had been the editor of Breitbart News after the unfortunate and early death of conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart.  Other people who have held similar positions as the one to which Bannon was named include Karl Rove, David Axelrod, and Valerie Jarrett.  The left are pulling their political stunts and organizing a fear campaign over the Bannon appointment in an effort to cripple Trump’s budding Administration.  They see in Bannon a formidable and tactically adroit political opponent.

Courtesy of CNN, here are some of the headlines from Breitbart News that are offered as proof of Bannon’s unfitness for office (where have we heard that before?) and reason why the left are so afraid of his appointment:

'The solution to online 'harassment' is simple: Women should log off' (Sensible advice for anyone, I’d say.)

'Bill Kristol: Republican spoiler, renegade Jew'  (Imagine if this original member of the #NeverTrump movement had been Catholic, like John Podesta, instead?  Not a problem being a renegade Catholic; and John Podesta is a fallen away Catholic BTW.)

'Trannies whine about hilarious Bruce Jenner billboard'   CNN Explains:  “A December 2015 article criticized a campaign to take down a billboard mocking Caitlyn Jenner after she went public with her transition last year. "Transsexuals have forced a company in New Zealand to take down a billboard poking fun at Bruce Jenner and his man-parts," the article said.”  (This is beautiful stuff for conservatives to make fun of because all the contradictions of political correctness are on display.)

'Birth control makes women unattractive and crazy'  CNN explains: “A December 2015 article made a case against birth control.”  Funny!

'Suck it up buttercups: Dangerous Faggot Tour returns to colleges in September'   CNN explains: “a show headlined by Breitbart tech editor Milo Yiannopoulos”  (who is openly gay BTW.)  Milo has been banned from certain college campuses because his outrageous act offends so many on the left.  This is funny!

'Hoist it high and proud: The Confederate flag proclaims a glorious heritage  CNN explains: 'Those who initiated identity politics are attempting to obliterate the Southern identity,”  (After a murderous rampage by a jackass, the left exploited this opportunity to destroy symbols of the old confederacy.)

"Would you rather your child had feminism or cancer?"  This was the headline on a story intended to publicize another campus debate featuring Breitbarts’ own Milo Yiannopoulos.

'Gay rights have made us dumber, it's time to get back in the closet'   CNN explains: “A June 2015 article by Yiannopoulos, who is openly gay, argued in favor of "forcing gays back into the closet." "I find it depressing that my fellow fags have stopped breeding," Yiannopoulos wrote.”  (I can’t but laugh at that one.)

'Science proves it: Fat-shaming works'  Now that’s funny!

"There's no hiring bias against women in tech, they just suck at interviews"  CNN explains: A July article suggested that research revealed "women might just suck at job interviews."

These headlines, once they are understood as subversive, right-wing satire, are obviously funny.  They poke fun at the shibboleths of the left, and they drive the left crazy.  That makes them even more satisfying.

On the crime of being subversive, anti-left, satirical, and above all funny as hell, I find Steve Bannon guilty as charged and sentence him to four years as Trump’s senior political advisor.

On the count of the left being a steaming pile of humorless turds, I find them guilty as charged and sentence them to four more years of Breitbart News.
-30-




Monday, November 14, 2016

Media Still Have Learned Nothing



Vincent J. Curtis

14 Nov 2016


Media which got everything wrong will now tell you all the things that will happen as a result of the thing they said wouldn't happen.


Alan Dershwitz: “The One Thing Trump Will Do if He’s Smart.”

Bill Walen:  Four Takeaways from Trump’s Decision to Make Reince Priebus His Chief of Staff.

News Item: “Priebus’s first role is defending colleague Bannon from accusations of racism, hate.”

Howard Kurtz: Media Buzz: “Can President Trump deliver on his promises?”

News Item:  “President-Elect Trump Willing to Keep Parts of Obamacare”

News Item:  Trump Admits “There Could Be Some Fencing.”

News Item: “How Donald Trump Blew Up the Bond Market, and Changed Everyone’s Views on Interest Rates.”

News Item:  “Trump faces backlash over appointing Steve Bannon as top aide, a choice critics say will empower white nationalists.”

News Item:  “In first test, Trump makes big mistake”

News Item:  “Reid Plans to keep up anti-Trump barrage.”

Analysis:  “How Donald Trump won and almost all of us missed it.”  (Speak for yourself, ABC)

News Item: “Cracks are already starting to show between Donald Trump and Republicans.”

News Item: “Trump’s Transition Team is just now learning what a president does.”


The above is a selection of news items and opinion pieces I picked off the web this morning.  The opening statement says it all and, with it in mind, reading the headlines of the various stores and opinion pieces makes the authors seem ridiculous.  Why media would bother themselves with what critics say so soon after the election is not baffling.  It is a sign of desperation, an attempt to seem relevant, and effort to redeem themselves.

I don’t know why Donald Trump is giving the main stream media the time of day.  Yet, he did an interview for the Wall Street Journal and the CBS news program “60 Minutes.”  The media have advised Trump to hire Kelly Ayotte (of all people!) to run the Department of Defense, as a means of demonstrating an outreach to the disaffected parts of the Republican Party.  Stupid!  The media learned nothing.  Has it not occurred to them, that the outreach should start from the other side?  Let’s hear Kelly Ayotte grovel a bit and admit she’s the one who made the mistake concerning Trump.

The media commentariat have also been on Trump’s case concerning his renewed use of Twitter.

So far as Twitter is concerned, Trump praised its valuable use during the campaign, and said he planned to keep using it as president to get his message out directly to the people.  We would not have known of the congratulations offered Trump by Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney unless Trump had tweeted those facts, and media reported on the tweets not the underlying story.

The media have a vested interest in separating Trump from his followers.  I expect news stories fretting and worrying about Trump’s abandonment of the Special Prosecutor for Hillary, about the Wall, about repealing and replacing Obamacare, about his use of insiders for his transition team and cabinet when he promised to “drain the swamp” and so forth.

For my part, I am not going to pay attention to media reports that seem to create problems for Trump.  I’m going to let Trump take office, and hold any criticism for six months, giving the man time to get his feet under him and begin to move on his program.

The Affordable Care Act is going to get repealed.  Repeal is psychologically necessary for Republicans.  Critics will try to portray the replacement that keep some parts of Obamacare as a mean-spirited repeal in name only, like retaining the same bung-hole and replacing the drum around it.  I expect insurance for those with pre-existing conditions will find a place in the replacement, but the individual mandate will be gone.  Medicare is going to have to be fixed, and I hope to see tort-reform as part of the insurance package.

I expect that by March, 2017, Hillary’s fate will be determined, at least insofar as the emails are concerned.  The pay-for-play business of the Clinton Foundation is an entirely separate matter, and she is not cleared of that.  I pay no attention to Trump’s soothing words at the moment concerning Hillary.  He is committed to nothing, and there will be the problem of equal justice for all if he lets Hillary's known email crimes go uninvestigated.

I would like to see Trump nominate Ted Cruz as Justice Scalia’s replacement on the Supreme Court.  Cruz is not on Trump’s original list, but who would be a more Scalia-like justice?  Regardless, Trump is not going to let us down on that score.

When it gets around to the media covering Trump, I’m going to subscribe to his Twitter feed and ignore the failed main stream media.  I can judge for myself.
-30-